To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

WATER QUALITY
IN
OKLAHOMA
2010
INTEGRATED REPORT
PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303(D) AND SECTION 305(B) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
BY
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page i of iv
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Definitions ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Agencies ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Terminologies ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Executive Summary/Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) Requirements ........................................................................................ 5
CWA Section 305(b) Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 5
Integrated Report Guidance ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Category 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Category 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Category 3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Category 4 ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
4B - Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the attainment of
the water quality standard in the near future. .............................................................................................. 7
4C - Impairment is not caused by a pollutant. .............................................................................................. 7
Category 5 ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
Synopsis .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Surface Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Ground Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Diversity and Ecology ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Climate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Water Pollution Control Programs .......................................................................................................................... 20
Water Quality Standards Program ....................................................................................................................... 21
Point Source Control Program ................................................................................................................................. 22
Nonpoint Source Control Program .......................................................................................................................... 23
Superfund Program ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Cost/Benefit Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 31
Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Surface Water Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Surface Water Monitoring Program ...................................................................................................................... 35
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Conservation Commission Monitoring Activities .......................................... 35
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Water Resources Board Monitoring Activities ............................................ 36
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Corporation Commission Monitoring Activities ............................................ 37
Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 39
Use Support Assessment Protocol ....................................................................................................................... 39
Beneficial Uses ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
Data Requirements ............................................................................................................................................... 39
Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Default Protocol ............................................................................................................................................... 41
Fish & Wildlife Propagation (F&WP) ................................................................................................................ 42
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ................................................................................................................................. 42
Toxicants ............................................................................................................................................................ 43
pH ....................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Biological Data ................................................................................................................................................ 44
Turbidity ............................................................................................................................................................ 45
Oil & Grease .................................................................................................................................................... 46
Page ii of iv
Sediment ............................................................................................................................................................ 46
Toxicants Not Assessed and Not Likely to Occur or Violate Criteria ..................................................... 47
Primary Body Contact Recreation (PBCR) .......................................................................................................... 47
Fecal Coliform .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Escherichia coli (E. coli) .................................................................................................................................... 48
Enterococci ......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Secondary Body Contact ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Public and Private Water Supply (PPWS) ......................................................................................................... 49
Toxicants ............................................................................................................................................................ 49
Total Coliform ................................................................................................................................................... 49
Oil & Grease .................................................................................................................................................... 50
Parameters Not Assessed and Not Likely to Occur or Violate Criteria................................................. 50
Chlorophyll-a and Phosphorus ....................................................................................................................... 50
Emergency Water Supply (EWS) ........................................................................................................................ 50
Agriculture .............................................................................................................................................................. 50
Total dissolved solids (TDS)............................................................................................................................ 51
Chlorides ............................................................................................................................................................ 51
Sulfates .............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Navigation .............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................................ 52
Nutrients ............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Phosphorus......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Oil & Grease .................................................................................................................................................... 53
Fish Consumption ................................................................................................................................................... 53
Category Decision Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 54
Causes of Non-Attainment .................................................................................................................................. 56
Sources of Non-Attainment ................................................................................................................................. 56
Prioritization of TMDL Development & Future Monitoring ............................................................................. 63
Coordination, Review, And Approval ................................................................................................................ 65
Groundwater Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 67
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Major Aquifers with Anthropogenic Water Quality Problems or Concerns .............................................. 68
Non-major Aquifers with Anthropogenic Water Quality Problems or Concerns ...................................... 71
Major Sources of Contamination ........................................................................................................................ 71
Overview of State Groundwater Protection Programs ...................................................................................... 73
Oklahoma's Wellhead Protection Program ..................................................................................................... 75
Groundwater Indicators ...................................................................................................................................... 75
References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 77
List of Figures
Figure 1. Ecoregions of Oklahoma ............................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2. Oklahoma Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3. Oklahoma Counties ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4. Ecoregions Where Biocriteria Have Been Established ............................................................................ 45
Figure 5. Integrated Report Category Decision Tree .............................................................................................. 55
Figure 6. Rotating Basin Plan Watersheds by Year ................................................................................................. 65
Figure 7. Mailout Request for Public Input ................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 8. Groundwater Aquifers of Oklahoma ......................................................................................................... 69
Page iii of iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Lake Category Summary ................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. River and Stream Category Summary ........................................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Lake Beneficial Use Support Summary .......................................................................................................... 9
Table 4. River and Stream Beneficial Use Support Summary ................................................................................ 10
Table 5. Lake Acres Impaired by Specific Pollutant ................................................................................................ 10
Table 6. River and Stream Miles Impaired by Specific Pollutant .......................................................................... 11
Table 7. Lake Acres Impaired by Potential Source .................................................................................................. 12
Table 8. River and Stream Miles Impaired by Potential Source ........................................................................... 12
Table 9. Statewide Probabilistic Assessment of Fish in Rivers and Streams ........................................................ 13
Table 10. Statewide Probabilistic Assessment of Macroinvertebrates in Rivers and Streams ........................ 13
Table 11. Atlas of Oklahoma ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 12. Superfund, NPL, and Non-NPL Sites Impacting on Groundwater and Surface Water .................. 26
Table 13. Federal Clean Water Act and State Matched Funding for Currently Active Grants ..................... 31
Table 14. FY 2006-2007 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Projects funded through the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund ............................................................................................................................... 32
Table 15. Temperature- and pH-Dependent Screening Values for Ammonia ................................................... 43
Table 16. Decision Matrix for Toxicants Not Assessed or Likely to Occur or Violate F&WP Criteria ......... 47
Table 17. Cause Codes ................................................................................................................................................. 56
Table 18. Source Codes ................................................................................................................................................ 57
Table 19. Useful Information in Determining Sources of Beneficial Use Non-Attainment ................................. 58
Table 22. Summary of the State Groundwater Protection Programs ................................................................. 73
Table 23. Public water supply standards violations ............................................................................................... 75
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Oklahoma’s Waterbody Identification System .............................................................................A-1
Appendix B – Comprehensive Waterbody Assessment ......................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C – 303(d) List of Impaired Waters........................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D – 303(d) Delisting Justifications ............................................................................................................D-1
Appendix E – Implementation of a Probabilistic Stream/River Monitoring Sampling Network for the State
of Oklahoma .................................................................................................................................................................. E-1
Appendix F – Response to Comments ........................................................................................................................ F-1
Page iv of iv
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2010 OK Integrated Report
Acronyms and Definitions
Page 1 of 78
Acronyms and Definitions
Agencies
ODAFF
OCC
Corporation Commission
OSDH
OSE
DEQ
OWRB
Wildlife Department
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Office of the Secretary of Environment
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Terminologies
303(d)
304(l)
305(b)
314
319(h)
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to identify waters that do not
or are not expected to meet applicable Water Quality Standards with technology-based
controls alone. States are required to establish a priority ranking for the
waters, taking into account the pollution severity and designated uses of the waters.
Once identification and priority ranking are completed, states are to develop Total
Maximum Daily Loads at a level necessary to achieve the applicable state Water
Quality Standards.
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to identify those waters that
fail to meet Water Quality Standards due to toxic pollutants and other sources of
toxicity. It also requires the preparation of individual control strategies that will
reduce point source discharges of toxic pollutants.
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to report its water quality on
a biennial cycle.
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to establish a Lake Water
Quality Assessment Report. This section provides federal funds for the state to submit
a classification of lakes according to trophic condition, develop processes and
methods to control sources of pollution and to work with other agencies in restoring
the quality of those lakes. Section 314 establishes the guidelines for conducting Clean
Lake Studies Phase I and II.
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to develop a State
Assessment Report and a Management Program for Nonpoint Source pollution
problems. The Assessment Report is to describe the nature, extent, and effects of
Nonpoint Source pollution, the causes and sources of such pollution, and programs
and methods used for controlling this pollution.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Acronyms and Definitions
Page 2 of 78
BMPs
BOD5
CBOD5
CTSI
CWA
DDT
DO
μg/L
NPDES
NTU
OKWBID
PCB(s)
pH
Best Management Practices: A technique that is determined to be the most effective,
practical means of preventing or reducing pollutants from nonpoint sources in order
to achieve water quality goals.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-Day): The oxygen used in meeting the metabolic
needs of aerobic microorganisms in water rich in organic matter -- called also
biological oxygen demand; the test requires five days of laboratory time and results
may vary when toxic substances are present which effect bacteria.
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-Day): That portion of the BOD that is
not due to oxidation of nitrogenous compounds.
Carlson's Trophic State Index (CTSI = 9.81 ln[chl- ] + 30.6).
Clean Water Act: Public Law 92-500 enacted in 1972 provides for a comprehensive
program of water pollution control; two goals are proclaimed in this Act: (1) to
achieve swimmable, fishable waters wherever attainable by July 1, 1983, and (2)
by 1985 eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters.
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane: A colorless odorless water-insoluble crystalline
insecticide C14H9Cl5 that tends to accumulate in ecosystems and has toxic effects on
many vertebrates.
Dissolved Oxygen: The amount of oxygen dissolved in water. DO concentrations
range from a few parts per million up to about 10 ppm for most Oklahoma streams.
A level of DO around 7 ppm is essential to sustain desired species of game fish. If
DO drops below 5 ppm the danger of a fish kill is present and malodorous conditions
will result. The major factors determining DO levels in water are temperature,
atmospheric pressure, plant photosynthesis, rate of aeration and the presence of
oxygen demanding substances such as organic wastes. In addition to its affect on
aquatic life, DO also prevents the chemical reduction and subsequent movement of
iron and manganese from the sediments and thereby reduces the cost of water
treatment.
Microgram/liter.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: A permit program established by
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. This program regulates discharges into the
nation's water from point sources, including municipal, industrial, commercial and
certain agricultural sources.
Nephelometric Turbidity Units: The measurement of the extent or degree of
cloudiness by means of a nephelometer (an instrument for determining the
concentration or particle size of suspensions by means of transmitted or reflected
light).
Oklahoma Waterbody Identification number: A unique identifier assigned to each
waterbody in Oklahoma. For a complete description of OKWBIDs, please see
Appendix A.
Polychlorinated Biphenyl(s): Any of several compounds that are produced by
replacing hydrogen atoms in biphenyl with chlorine, have various industrial
applications, and are poisonous environmental pollutants which tend to accumulate in
animal tissues.
The negative logarithm of the effective hydrogen ion concentration or hydrogen-ion
activity in gram equivalents per liter used in expressing both acidity and alkalinity on
2010 OK Integrated Report
Acronyms and Definitions
Page 3 of 78
Playa Lakes / Prairie
Potholes
TDS
TMDL
WLA
WQS
a scale whose values run from 0 to 14 with 7 representing neutrality, numbers less
than 7 increasing acidity, and numbers greater that 7 increasing alkalinity.
Shallow, small, ephemeral to permanent closed basin lake, typically found in high plains
and deserts.
Total Dissolved Solids: The complete amount of solid matter dissolved in water or
wastewater.
Total Maximum Daily Load: The sum of individual wasteload allocations for point
sources, safety, reserves, and loads from nonpoint source and natural backgrounds.
Wasteload Allocation: The assignment of target loads to point sources so as to
achieve Water Quality Standards in the most efficient manner. The wasteload
allocation is designed to allocate or allow certain quantities, rates or concentration of
pollutants discharged from contributing point sources which empty their effluent into
the same river segment. The purpose of the wasteload allocation is to eliminate an
undue "wasteload burden" on a given stream segment.
Water Quality Standards: rules which establish classifications of uses of waters of the
state, criteria to maintain and protect such classifications, and other standards or
policies pertaining to the quality of such waters.
The purpose of the Standards is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as
are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the
State does not occur. These rules can be found at OAC 785:45.
Page 4 of 78
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 5 of 78
Executive Summary/Overview
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) Requirements
The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act include Section 303(d). The regulations implementing Section 303(d)
require states to develop lists of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and to submit updated lists
to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years. Water quality standards, as defined in the
Code of Federal Regulations, include beneficial uses, water quality objectives (narrative and numerical) and anti-degradation
requirements. The EPA is required to review impaired water body lists submitted by each state and
approve or disapprove all or part of the list.
For waterbodies on the 303(d) list, the Clean Water Act requires that a pollutant load reduction plan or TMDL be
developed to correct each cause of impairment. TMDLs must document the nature of the water quality impairment,
determine the maximum amount of a pollutant which can be discharged and still meet standards, and identify
allowable loads from the contributing sources. The elements of a TMDL include a problem statement, description of
the desired future condition (numeric target), pollutant source analysis, load allocations, description of how allocations
relate to meeting targets, and margin of safety.
CWA Section 305(b) Requirements
The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act also include Section 305(b). The regulations implementing Section
305(b) require states to develop an inventory of the water quality of all water bodies in the state and to submit an
updated report to the EPA every two years. This process was established as a means for the EPA and the U. S.
Congress to determine the status of the nation's waters.
The 305(b) Report also includes: an analysis of the extent to which water bodies comply with the
―fishable/swimmable‖ goal of the CWA; an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of
pollutants and a level of water quality achieving the ―fishable/swimmable‖ goal have been or will be attained, with
recommendations of additional actions necessary to achieve this goal; an estimate of a) the environmental impact, b)
the economic and social costs, c) the economic and social benefits, and d) the estimated date of such achievement;
and finally, a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations of
programs needed to control them- including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
Integrated Report Guidance
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued guidance (USEPA, 2005) for the development of an
Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Integrated Report) by the States. This guidance
recommends that States integrate their Water Quality Inventory Report (Section 305(b) of the CWA) and their
Impaired Waterbodies List (Section 303(d) of the CWA). The Integrated Report is intended to provide an effective
tool for maintaining high quality waters and improving the quality of waters that do not attain water quality
standards. The Integrated Report will also provide water resources managers and citizens with detailed information
regarding the following:
• Delineation of water quality assessment units providing geographic display of assessment results
• Progress toward achieving comprehensive assessment of all waters
• Water quality standards attainment status
• Methods used to assess water quality standards attainment status
• Additional monitoring needs and schedules
• Pollutants and watersheds requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
• Pollutants and watersheds requiring alternative pollution control measures
• Management strategies (including TMDLs) under development to attain water quality standards
• TMDL development schedules
The Integrated Report will streamline water quality reporting since data sources and assessment methods will be
described in detail, providing a sound technical basis for assessment decisions. Assessment results will also be
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 6 of 78
conveyed in a spatial context, allowing a clearer picture of water quality status and issues. Monitoring needs and
schedules will be described, facilitating the articulation of monitoring priorities and identifying opportunities for
cooperation with other agencies and watershed partners. TMDL needs and schedules will be defined to convey plans
for water quality improvements. The public participation aspects will provide opportunities for data submittal and
open discussion of water quality assessment methods and results.
The Integrated Report combines the non-regulatory requirements of the Water Quality Inventory Report (305b) with
regulation driven List of Impaired Waterbodies (303d) (i.e., only the latter mandates TMDL development). Successful
integration into a single report requires a careful meshing of requirements and procedures. In general, Category 5 of
the Integrated Report satisfies USEPA reporting requirements under Section 303d (Impaired Waterbodies) and
combined with the remaining Categories document assessment under Section 305b (Water Quality Inventory).
Therefore, the regulatory requirements (i.e., EPA approval and adoption; public participation, etc.) for 303d
impaired waterbodies listing only apply to Category 5 of the Integrated Report.
The methods used to develop the 2010 Integrated Report (and subsequent Reports) are described in the Continuing
Planning Process (CPP). One goal of the CPP is to provide an objective and scientifically sound waterbody assessment
listing methodology including:
• A description of the data that the State will use to assess attainment of surface water quality standards
• The quality assurance aspects of the data
• A detailed description of the methods used to evaluate water quality standards attainment
• The placement of waterbodies in one of 5 Categories:
Category 1 - Attaining the water quality standard and no use is threatened.
Waterbodies listed in this category are characterized by data and information that meet the requirements
of the CPP to support a determination that the water quality standard is attained and no use is threatened.
Consideration will be given to scheduling these waterbodies for future monitoring to determine if the water
quality standard continues to be attained.
Category 2 - Attaining some of the designated uses; no use is threatened; and insufficient or no data
and information is available to determine if the remaining uses are attained or threatened.
Waterbodies listed in this category are characterized by data and information which meet the requirements
of the CPP to support a determination that some, but not all, uses are attained and none are threatened.
Attainment status of the remaining uses is unknown because there is insufficient or no data or information.
Monitoring shall be scheduled for these waterbodies to determine if the uses previously found to be in
attainment remain in attainment, and to determine the attainment status of those uses for which data and
information was previously insufficient to make a determination.
Category 3 - Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated use is attained.
Waterbodies are listed in this category when the data or information to support an attainment
determination for any use is not available, consistent with the requirements of the CPP. To assess the
attainment status of these waterbodies, supplementary data and information shall be obtained, or
monitoring shall be scheduled as needed.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 7 of 78
Category 4 - Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but does not require the
development of a TMDL.
4A - TMDL has been completed.
Waterbodies are listed in this subcategory once all TMDL(s) have been developed and approved by
EPA that, when implemented, are expected to result in full attainment of the standard. Where more
than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a waterbody, the waterbody will remain in
Category 5 until all TMDLs for each pollutant have been completed and approved by EPA. Monitoring
shall be scheduled for these waterbodies to verify that the water quality standard is met when the
water quality management actions needed to achieve all TMDLs are implemented.
4B - Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the attainment of the
water quality standard in the near future.
Consistent with the regulation under 130.7(b)(i),(ii), and (iii), waterbodies are listed in this subcategory
when other pollution control requirements required by local, state, or federal authority are stringent
enough to implement any water quality standard (WQS) applicable to such waters. These requirements
must be specifically applicable to the particular water quality problem. Monitoring shall be scheduled
for these waterbodies to verify that the water quality standard is attained as expected.
4C - Impairment is not caused by a pollutant.
Waterbodies are listed in this subcategory if the impairment is not caused by a pollutant. Scheduling of
these waterbodies for monitoring to confirm that there continues to be no pollutant-caused impairment
and to support water quality management actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the impairment,
shall be considered.
Category 5 - The water quality standard is not attained. The waterbody is impaired or threatened for
one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s), and requires a TMDL.
This category constitutes the Section 303(d) list of waters impaired or threatened by a pollutant(s) for which
one or more TMDL(s) are needed. A waterbody is listed in this category if it is determined, in accordance
with the CPP, that a pollutant has caused, is suspected of causing, or is projected to cause an impairment.
Where more than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a single waterbody, the waterbody will
remain in Category 5 until TMDLs for all pollutants have been completed and approved by EPA. For
waterbodies listed in this category, monitoring schedules shall be provided that describe when data and
information will be collected to support TMDL establishment and to determine if the standard is attained.
While the waterbody is being monitored for a specific pollutant to develop a TMDL, the watershed shall
also be monitored to assess the attainment status of other uses. A schedule for the establishment of TMDLs
for all waters in Category 5 shall be submitted. This schedule shall reflect the priority ranking of the listed
waters. Category 5 waterbodies are further divided into the following subcategories:
5A – TMDL is underway or will be scheduled.
5B – A review of the water quality standards will be conducted before a TMDL is scheduled.
5C – Additional data and information will be collected before a TMDL or review of the water
quality standards is scheduled.
The CPP will provide a companion to the 2010 Integrated Report. It is anticipated that this will be a living document
and will be modified, as appropriate, to accompany subsequent Integrated Reports.
Oklahoma’s comprehensive waterbody category list is available in Appendix B. Category 5 waterbodies can be
viewed exclusively in Appendix C.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 8 of 78
Synopsis
During the 2009/2010 reporting cycle, there were a total of 4,183 waterbodies delineated into the Oklahoma
Assessment Database (ADB). These waters include approximately 637,338 lake acres, and 32,885 river and stream
miles, of which approximately 517 miles form the border with the State of Texas.
The water quality data used in this report was collected by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC),
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Corp. Comm.),
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), United States Geological Survey, Tulsa Public Works & Development
Department, Cherokee Nation, and citizens of the state. Only data collected prior to April 30, 2009 was utilized for
this report.
Data used in this report came from several sources, including the Toxics Monitoring Survey of Oklahoma Reservoirs
(OSDH, 1995), Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report (Section 319(h)) (OCC, 1988, 1994), Clean Lakes
Programs (Section 314) (OCC & OWRB), Lake Water Quality Assessment Report (OCC & OWRB, 1994), The Water
Quality of Oklahoma 2008 Integrated Report (ODEQ, 2008), Data Gaps Monitoring Projects (OCC 2002, 2003),
Beneficial Use Monitoring Program, Rotating Basin Monitoring Program, intensive and rapid bio-assessment surveys,.
Historical data and assessments (prior to May 1, 2004) were only used when insufficient current data was available
to assess a waterbody.
The State considers data gathered by interested citizens of the state of Oklahoma to be an important part of the
water quality assessment process. Two organizations that help by contributing to this process are Blue Thumb and
Oklahoma Water Watch. Volunteers collect water quality samples and deliver those samples to water quality
professionals for analysis and assessment. For more information on Blue Thumb, contact the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission. For more information on Oklahoma Water Watch, contact the Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
Additional monitoring will allow the state agencies to refine and modify the descriptions of the quality of the state’s
waters. This report reflects water quality determinations made in the past and such determinations will be confirmed
or modified, as additional monitoring data becomes available. Where some waterbodies are indicated to be
impaired, and suspected cause of impairment is listed, this information is also subject to confirmation or modification
based on additional studies and evaluation by state agencies.
Table 1 shows the size and number of lakes in the state of Oklahoma designated as one of the five available
categories outlined in the Integrated List Guidance above, while Table 2 does the same for river and stream miles.
TABLE 1. LAKE CATEGORY SUMMARY
Category Size (Acres) Number of Waterbodies
1 0 0
2 25,034 8
3 32,761 271
4A 0 0
4B 0 0
4C 0 0
5A 579,543 142
5B 0 0
5C 0 0
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 9 of 78
TABLE 2. RIVER AND STREAM CATEGORY SUMMARY
Category Size (Miles) Number of Waterbodies
1 61 2
2 2,184 188
3 20,317 2,952
4A 719 47
4B 0 0
4C 0 0
5A 8,753 460
5B 95 10
5C 636 103
Table 3 details the attainment status of each designated beneficial use assigned to lake acres in Oklahoma, while
Table 4 does the same for river and stream miles. Each beneficial use for a waterbody must have only one
attainment status associated with that use: supporting, not supporting, insufficient information, or not assessed (no
information). The methodology for assigning the attainment status of a beneficial use of a waterbody is outlined in
the Assessment Methodology and Summary Data section of this report.
TABLE 3. LAKE BENEFICIAL USE SUPPORT SUMMARY
Lake Acres
Use Total Size
Size Fully
Supporting
Size Not
Supporting
Size Not
Assessed
Size with
Insufficient
Info
Aesthetic 637,338 371,757 134,954 32,446 98,181
Agriculture 628,648 471,760 24,211 32,761 99,916
Fish Consumption 637,338 0 0 637,338 0
Warm Water Aquatic
Community 637,338 10,897 576,246 32,455 17,740
Navigation 84,440 84,440 0 0 0
Primary Body Contact
Recreation 637,338 151,021 100,840 32,976 352,681
Public and Private Water
Supply 594,896 147,189 69,175 34,139 344,396
Sensitive Water Supply 136,399 0 0 136,399 0
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 10 of 78
TABLE 4. RIVER AND STREAM BENEFICIAL USE SUPPORT SUMMARY
River Miles
USE Total Size
Size Fully
Supporting
Size Not
Supporting
Size Not
Assessed
Size with
Insufficient
Info
Aesthetic 32,859 5,051 1,109 18,111 8,589
Agriculture 32,789 7,615 3,326 18,223 3,625
Emergency Water Supply 1,598 1,598 0 0 0
Fish Consumption 32,793 567 2,576 28,930 720
Cool Water Aquatic
Community Subcategory 1,608 408 452 561 188
Habitat Limited Aquatic
Community Subcategory 870 57 107 604 101
Trout Fishery 34 0 1 24 9
Warm Water Aquatic
Community Subcategory 30,436 2,553 5,490 16,763 5,630
Navigation 213 213 0 0 0
Primary Body Contact
Recreation 31,599 479 6,712 21,852 2,556
Public and Private Water
Supply 14,907 1,443 384 6,605 6,475
Sensitive Water Supply 1,486 0 0 1,486 0
Secondary Body Contact
Recreation 1,306 79 165 862 200
Table 5 shows the number of lake acres impaired by specific pollutant and Table 6 shows the same for the number of
river and stream miles.
TABLE 5. LAKE ACRES IMPAIRED BY SPECIFIC POLLUTANT
Cause Size (Acres)
Oxygen, Dissolved 396,260
Turbidity 382,541
Color 126,294
Enterococcus 95,636
Chlorophyll-α 69,172
Chloride 17,610
Total Phosphorus 15,993
pH 12,193
Escherichia coli 6,346
Total Dissolved Solids 6,325
Sulfates 5,676
Lead 450
Fecal Coliform 260
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 11 of 78
TABLE 6. RIVER AND STREAM MILES IMPAIRED BY SPECIFIC POLLUTANT
Impairment Size (Miles)
Enterococcus 6,236
Escherichia coli 3,372
Turbidity 3,292
Fecal Coliform 2,673
Dissolved Oxygen 2,121
Total Dissolved Solids 2,113
Thallium 2,073
Chloride 1,968
Sulfates 1,849
Lead 1,593
Sedimentation/Siltation 928
Fishes Bioassessments (Streams) 912
Selenium 501
pH 399
Oil and Grease 281
Copper 156
Cadmium 151
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments 131
Total Phosphorus 118
Ammonia (Un-ionized) 102
Temperature, water 101
Nitrates 85
Zinc 63
Chlorpyrifos 42
Silver 27
DDT 19
Toxaphene 19
Diazinon 11
Dieldrin 10
Chromium (total) 10
Arsenic 6
Barium 4
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 12 of 78
Table 7 shows the number of lake acres impaired by potential sources, and Table 8 shows the number of river and
stream miles impaired by potential sources.
TABLE 7. LAKE ACRES IMPAIRED BY POTENTIAL SOURCE
Potential Source Size (Acres)
Source Unknown 579,508
Rangeland Grazing 37,183
Wildlife Other than Waterfowl 37,183
Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones 32,153
Wastes from Pets 20,553
On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems) 12,915
Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) 9,474
Impacts from Land Application of Wastes 9,474
Sources Outside State Jurisdiction or Borders 9,474
Petroleum/Natural Gas Activities (Legacy) 35
Silviculture Harvesting 25
TABLE 8. RIVER AND STREAM MILES IMPAIRED BY POTENTIAL SOURCE
Potential Source Size (Miles)
Source Unknown 9,640
Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones 6,898
Rangeland Grazing 6,666
Wildlife Other than Waterfowl 6,403
On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems 6,243
Wastes from Pets 4,750
Residential Districts 4,444
Municipal Point Source Discharges 3,798
Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff (Non-construction Related) 3,722
Non-Irrigated Crop Production 3,596
Impacts from Land Application of Wastes 2,500
Atmospheric Deposition – Toxics 2,087
Petroleum/Natural Gas Activities (Legacy) 1,976
Total Retention Domestic Sewage Lagoons 1,179
Agriculture 1,044
Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) 801
Permitted Runoff from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) 756
Clean Sediments 639
Other Spill Related Impacts (Recent Spills) 507
Industrial Point Source Discharge 329
Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands (Inactive) 264
Landfills 251
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 13 of 78
Potential Source Size (Miles)
Mine Tailings 180
Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area) 170
Sources outside State Jurisdiction or Borders 163
Impacts from Hydrostructure Flow Regulation/Modification 156
Atmospheric Deposition - Acidity 146
Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) 116
Silviculture Harvesting 67
Dredging (E.g., for Navigation Channels) 62
Land Application of Wastewater Biosolids (Non-agricultural 46
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 28
Natural Sources 21
Spills from Trucks or Trains 17
Discharges from Biosolids (SLUDGE) Storage, Application or Disposal 17
Releases from Waste Sites or Dumps 17
Surface Mining 14
CERCLA NPL (Superfund) Sites 12
Irrigated Crop Production 10
Acid Mine Drainage 8
Flow Alterations from Water Diversions 1
Statewide probabilistic estimates of fish and macroinvertebrate communities in rivers and streams are depicted in
Table 9 and Table 10, respectively. A description of the State of Oklahoma’s probabilistic monitoring program can
be found in Appendix E of this report. The full report can be found on the OWRB website at www.owrb.ok.gov.
TABLE 9. STATEWIDE PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF FISH IN RIVERS AND STREAMS
Resource Unit Cause Name
State Attainment
Category
Size in
Category
Conf
Level
Lower
Conf
Upper
Conf
Rivers/Streams Miles Fish Good 7,034
95%
±8%
6,499 7,629
Rivers/Streams Miles Fish Fair 4,200
95%
±8%
3,864 4,536
Rivers/Streams
Miles Fish Poor 2,448
95%
±8%
2,252 2,644
TABLE 10. STATEWIDE PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF MACROINVERTEBRATES IN RIVERS AND STREAMS
Resource Unit Cause Name
State Attainment
Category
Size in
Category
Conf
Level
Lower
Conf
Upper
Conf
Rivers/Streams Miles Macroinvertebrates Good 7,005
95%
±8%
6,445 7,565
Rivers/Streams Miles Macroinvertebrates Fair 4,608
95%
±8%
4,239 4,977
Rivers/Streams
Miles Macroinvertebrates Poor 2,026
95%
±8%
1,864 2,188
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 14 of 78
Surface Water Quality
Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards (WQS) are set forth under statutory authority of the OWRB authorized under
82 O.S. § 1085.30. Under these statutes, OWRB "is required to set water quality standards which are practical and
in the best public interest and to classify the state's waters with respect to their best present and future uses. These
WQS are designed to enhance the quality of the waters, to protect their beneficial uses, and to aid in the prevention,
control and abatement of water pollution in the State of Oklahoma" (OWRB, 2006). The WQS have established
designated beneficial uses and standards for all of Oklahoma's waters.
The overall support and attainment of the ―fishable/swimmable‖ goals of the CWA is based upon "total waters." The
EPA requires all states to report their attainment of the goals of the CWA based on total waters. Relying solely upon
this portrayal probably overly inflates estimates of the impaired and threatened conditions of the state’s waters since
monitoring efforts are typically focused on known problem areas. It would be too cost prohibitive to assess all of the
waters within the state. Therefore, all assessment work performed in the state is conducted in a manner that will best
utilize available funding resources. For lake total water reporting, the acreage includes Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) assisted farm ponds. Oklahoma lists
approximately 1,041,884 total lake acres for the state. Of this number, 330,000 acres comprise approximately
220,000 NRCS assisted farm ponds. These farm ponds are not included in EPA's total water database. Although not
considered as "significant lakes," the state considers them as important natural resources for the agricultural and rural
communities. These farm ponds provide a significant amount of water for livestock, a source of primary recreation
for many, used as flood control devices, sediment catchments, and add to the recharge of groundwater aquifers.
Canals, laterals and most all of the wetlands have not been assessed for the goals of the CWA nor have they been
assessed for their beneficial uses. Canals and laterals are manmade watercourses and have not been included in the
Appendix A of the WQS. By default, these waters would be assigned primary protection under the 2008 WQS
(OWRB, 2008). Due to a lack of funding, no assessment projects have been initiated on these types of waterbodies.
Wetlands have not been assigned specific WQS and therefore fall under the same scenario as canals and laterals.
Several projects and ventures have been initiated to inventory the wetlands within the state, but little assessment work
has been completed.
The major factors affecting the overall use support of the rivers and streams of the state were from the following
causes: pathogens, mineralization, and turbidity. The major factors affecting the overall use support of the lakes of
the state were from the following causes: oxygen depletion, turbidity, and color.
All unlisted waters, not included in Appendix A of the WQS, are assumed to have the beneficial uses consistent with
the CWA's primary protection requirements. All beneficial use determinations are subject to administrative
proceedings including the public hearing process.
Currently, the DEQ develops draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the control
and abatement of municipal and industrial pollution. The DEQ issues the final NPDES permit for municipalities and
industrial dischargers. Permit compliance is monitored by both the discharger and inspectors for the DEQ.
Since the inception of the CWA in 1972 and its amendments, EPA administered the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, which addresses the management of industrial and municipal wastewater
discharges. Previously, the functions related to wastewater were found in the OSDH, for municipal wastewater, and
the OWRB for industrial wastewater. The scattering of the NPDES jurisdiction between two agencies that were
independently pursuing delegation of their portion from the NPDES program did not appear to be conducive for
Oklahoma to assume the program from EPA. Consolidation of the two agencies into the DEQ in July 1993 solved this
problem and the work began for the agency to develop its required program documents, rules and statute changes in
preparation of submitting its formal NPDES application to EPA, Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas.
The DEQ obtained NPDES program assumption from EPA on November 19, 1996. This is indicative of the agency
having jurisdiction over the basic permitting, compliance and enforcement elements of the NPDES program, in
addition to having authority over toxicity reduction, sewage sludge and pretreatment programs. In September 1997,
program assumption to issue storm water permits was obtained from EPA.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 15 of 78
On the other hand, ODAFF is currently seeking delegation of NPDES program from EPA for CAFO permitting.
Program documents have been submitted to EPA for review. Once the program is delegated, State will have more
control over animal waste discharge or reuse through land application.
Ground Water Quality
The goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are that the nation's groundwater be free of harmful levels of
contaminants and they set national standards for drinking water. Several state agencies are involved in the
protection of Oklahoma's groundwater. These include the DEQ, ODAFF, Corporation Commission, OCC, and the
OWRB. The DEQ is designated as the lead agency for the Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP).
There are instances of man induced groundwater pollution in the state. Except in a few old oilfields, they appear to
be isolated instances and not general contamination of groundwater drinking water supplies. Historical data
indicates water is of good quality from most aquifers.
Oklahoma has Groundwater Standards located in OAC 785:45-7. Designated beneficial uses for the groundwaters
of the state are determined by Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Groundwater with a mean concentration of TDS of less
than 3,000 milligrams per liter has assigned beneficial uses of Public and Private Water Supply, Agriculture, and
Industrial and Municipal Process and Cooling Water. Groundwater with a mean concentration of TDS of greater than
or equal to 3,000 milligrams per liter but less than 10,000 milligrams per liter has assigned beneficial uses of
Agriculture and Industrial and Municipal Process and Cooling Water. Groundwater is protected to background
quality and, once polluted as a result of human activities, is restored to a quality to support its designated beneficial
uses. Ensuring that groundwater meets Water Quality Standards is an important reason for developing and
continuing a Water Quality monitoring Program.
Page 16 of 78
Background
Diversity and Ecology
Oklahoma is a diverse state in its ecology, geology, hydrology, and its rainfall. Oklahoma is comprised of the
following ecoregions: Arkansas Valley, Boston Mountains, Central Great Plains, Central Irregular Plains, Central
Oklahoma/Texas Plains, Flint Hills, Ouachita Mountains, Ozark Highlands, South Central Plains, Southwestern
Tablelands, and Western High Plains. These ecoregions (Figure 1) range from short grass prairies to Loblolly Pine
(Pinus taeda)/Short-leaf Pine (P. echinata)/Oak (Quercus spp.) mixed community.
Much of Oklahoma's original plant and some animal species are either extinct or are greatly reduced in their
distribution. The reduction in native vegetation is mainly due to cultivation, conversion of native prairie to pasture,
timber cutting, and erosion. There are approximately 2,540 species of plants, 81 species of reptiles, 53 species of
amphibians, 101 species of mammals, 400 species of birds, and 175 species of fish. Agriculture is the number one
land use business in the state. Wheat is the number one cash grain crop grown in Oklahoma. Wheat is valuable
during the winter as pasture feed for cattle, sheep and dairy stock. Other important grain crops for the state include
fall and spring oats, barley, rye, sorghum, soybeans, and corn. In addition, pecans, fruits, vegetables, cotton, and
timber all constitute a significant source of income for the state. Other important agricultural land use practices
include cattle, dairy stock, sheep, poultry, and select exotics (e.g., llamas and ostriches).
The latitude and longitude coordinate for the corners of the state, excluding the Panhandle are: Southeast
033 38'15"/ 094 29'08"; Northeast 036 59'54"/094 37'04"; Southwest 034 33'38"/100 00'00"; and Northwest
037 00'00"/100 00'00". The coordinates for the Panhandle are: Southeast 036 30'00"/ 100 00'00"; Northeast
037 00'00"/100 00'00"; Southwest 036 30'00"/103 00'00"; and Northwest 037 00'00"/103 00'00". Oklahoma
runs approximately 481.51 miles east to west and 230.16 miles north to south. The surface area of Oklahoma
occupies approximately 69,919 square miles or 44,000,000 acres. Oklahoma varies in its elevation from its lowest
point of 287 feet above sea level on the Little River in McCurtain County on the border with Arkansas to its highest
point of 4,973 feet above sea level, near Black Mesa in Cimarron County on the border with New Mexico. There
are ten major geologic provinces in Oklahoma with the Northern Shelf Areas being the largest (Figure 2) (Oklahoma
Geological Survey, 1972). Oklahoma is composed of 77 counties with Osage being the largest (Figure 3). Basic
statistics on Oklahoma can be found in Table 9.
Information contained in Table 9 came from a variety of sources including the 2008 U.S. Census estimates, United
States Geological Survey data, the OWRB data, Oklahoma Water Atlas, Reach File 3/Digital Line Graph Data,
ground surveys, the Wildlife Department, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and planimeter data. For the lakes
information, Oklahoma uses the information from the Oklahoma Water Atlas. Oklahoma's environmental agencies
feel that the information contained in the Oklahoma Water Atlas better represents the total of lakes and lake acres
contained within the state. For the remaining rivers, creeks, canals and laterals we will be using a combination of
sources for our data.
The total of fresh-water wetland acres was derived from information obtained from the Wildlife Department and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service reports Riparian Areas of Western Oklahoma and Bottomland Hardwoods of
Eastern Oklahoma. These reports contain information on 58 of the 77 counties in the state. The information in Table
11 was derived from taking the total of the largest most recent estimate for each county listed in the two reports.
This total underestimates the actual number of wetland acres for the state and should be used with extreme caution
when making comparison or trend analysis on Oklahoma's loss of wetlands.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 17 of 78
FIGURE 1. ECOREGIONS OF OKLAHOMA
Central Great Plains
Cross Timbers
Arkansas Valley
High Plains
Central
Irregular
Plains
Ouachita Mountains
Ozark
Highlands
South Central Plains
Flint
Hills
Southwestern
Tablelands
Boston Mountains
High Plains
Southwestern
Tablelands
East Central
Texas Plains
Southwestern
Tablelands
5 Ecoregions of Oklahoma
0 25 50 100 150 200
Miles
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 18 of 78
FIGURE 2. OKLAHOMA GEOLOGY
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 19 of 78
FIGURE 3. OKLAHOMA COUNTIES
TEXAS
OSAGE
ELLIS
BEAVER
KAY
LE FLORE
CADDO
CIMARRON
CREEK
MCCURTAIN
GRADY
WOODS
BRYAN
ATOKA
KIOWA
GRANT
DEWEY BLAINE
HARPER
CUSTER
MAJOR
PITTSBURG
CRAIG
CARTER
GARFIELD NOBLE
PAYNE
LINCOLN
WASHITA
ALFALFA
TILLMAN
LOVE
PUSHMATAHA
MAYES
GARVIN
GREER
LOGAN TULSA
HUGHES
ADAIR
COAL
BECKHAM
LATIMER
STEPHENS
WOODWARD
COMANCHE
ROGER MILLS
ROGERS
JACKSON
CANADIAN
KINGFISHER
HASKELL
CHEROKEE
COTTON
CHOCTAW
MUSKOGEE
JEFFERSON
PAWNEE
MCINTOSH
SEQUOYAH
OKMULGEE
PONTOTOC
OKFUSKEE
OKLAHOMA
JOHNSTON
OTTAWA
WAGONER
MURRAY
DELAWARE
SEMINOLE
MCCLAIN
NOWATA
HARMON
CLEVELAND
POTTAWATOMIE
MARSHALL
WASHINGTON
5 Counties of Oklahoma
0 20 40 80 120 160
Miles
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 20 of 78
TABLE 11. ATLAS OF OKLAHOMA
State Population
3,642,361
State Surface Area, Square Miles
69,919
Number of Major Watershed Basins
7
Total Number of River and Stream Miles
Number of Perennial River and Stream Miles
Number of Intermittent Stream Miles
Number of Canals or Ditches
Number of River Border Miles
78,778
22,386
55,413
175
517
Total Number of Lakes/Reservoirs/Playa/Ponds
Number of Large Lakes
Number of Public & Private Lakes
Number of Watershed Protection Lakes
Number of Playa Lakes (wet season only)
Number of Oxbow Lakes (≥ 10 Acres)
Number of Farm Ponds (Soil Conservation Service assisted)
224,948
34
2,303
1,964
585
62
220,000
Total Number of Lakes/Reservoirs/Playa/Ponds Acres
Major Lake Acres
Public & Private Lake Acres
Watershed Protection Lake Acres
Playa Lakes Acres
Oxbow Lake Acres
Farm Pond Acres
1,041,884
555,450
89,836
54,261
9,572
2,765
330,000
Total Number of Freshwater Wetland Acres
733,895
2008 U.S. Census Bureau Estimate
Based upon United States Geological Survey information
OWRB Data
Reach File 3/Digital Line Graph Data
Oklahoma Water Atlas, 1990
Estimates compiled from the Wildlife Department & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Climate
Oklahoma has a continental type of climate. There are pronounced seasonal and geographical ranges in both
temperature and precipitation. Average annual temperature varies from 53.6 F in the western part of the
Panhandle up to 63.8 F in the southeast part of the state. Annual rainfall varies from approximately 17 inches in
the far western part of the Panhandle to over 55 inches per year near the LeFlore County/McCurtain
County/Arkansas border. The average growing season varies from 180 days in the Panhandle to 240 days in the
southeast corner. Typically, 75% of Oklahoma's annual precipitation falls during the growing season.
Water Pollution Control Programs
The myriad and complex water quality problems remaining today require a more comprehensive approach to find
workable and effective solutions. As we continue to have success reducing impacts from point sources, pollution from
nonpoint sources takes on more significance. Non-traditional concerns such as habitat degradation and conservation
of biological diversity also call for a comprehensive approach.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 21 of 78
The watershed approach provides such a management framework. Utilizing support from the 104(b)(3) program,
Oklahoma has taken the first steps to implement the watershed approach for water quality management in the state.
The following accomplishments have been achieved:
A Whole Basin Planning Approach Working Group was established to coordinate planning and implementation
of the watershed approach in Oklahoma. Representatives of the various state and federal agencies with a role
in water quality management were represented on the Working Group.
A cooperative project with USGS produced a new digital elevation model and digital watershed maps for the
state. Existing 8-digit cataloging units were subdivided into 11-digit watersheds. These watershed maps are the
basis for the state program. The maps have been published on CD-ROM and are available to all agencies and
the public.
Utilizing the new watershed boundaries, the Working Group delineated 11 Watershed Management Units that
are used to implement the watershed approach. The intent is that planning, monitoring, permitting, and other
water quality programs will eventually be coordinated and organized at this scale when the watershed
approach is fully implemented.
Accurate locational data on all dischargers has been gathered using the Global Positioning System. These data
have been built into a GIS-compatible format for analysis. Links to permitting and monitoring data in the PCS
system have been established for analysis and assessment purposes.
A technical committee was established to develop an implementation plan to utilize the new Watershed
Management Units and watershed boundaries in the various reporting and planning programs. Water Quality
Standards, the 303(d) list, the 208 Plan, and the 305(b) Report were targeted for this effort.
Water Quality Standards Program
Oklahoma's WQS are set forth under statutory authority of the OWRB authorized under 82 O.S. § 1085.30. Under
these statutes, the OWRB "is required to set water quality standards which are practical and in the best public
interest and to classify the state's waters with respect to their best present and future uses. These WQS are designed
to enhance the quality of the waters, to protect their beneficial uses, and to aid in the prevention, control and
abatement of water pollution in the State of Oklahoma" (OWRB, 2006). The WQS have established designated
beneficial uses and standards for all of Oklahoma's waters.
Oklahoma defines waters of the state to mean "all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells,
springs, irrigation systems, drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface and
underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon this
state or any portion thereof 82 O.S. § 1084.2(3).
Much of the work developing WQS over the past three decades has been dedicated to the control of point source
discharges through chemical-specific criteria and permit limits. Over the past five years, biological water quality
criteria have also been pursued.
Potential uses of biocriteria, as they pertain to Oklahoma’s WQS, are numerous and far-reaching. Upon completion,
biocriteria and their implementation procedures should be incorporated into the OWRB Rules and into Oklahoma's
Continuing Planning Process (CPP) document. They should then be used as an assessment tool.
The current biological thresholds will allow state agencies and others to consistently analyze the biological community
in terms of the Fish and Wildlife Beneficial Use. These procedures will, for the first time, allow for consistent
examination of biological communities with a minimum of subjectivity and judgment. Ongoing work in this area of
biocriteria development will eventually provide statewide coverage and a biological Use Support Assessment
Protocols for all ecoregions in Oklahoma.
Candidate reference streams have been selected in the Ouachita Mountain, Arkansas Valley, Boston Mountains,
Ozark Highlands, Central Irregular Plains, Central Oklahoma – Texas Plains, and Central Great Plains ecoregions.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 22 of 78
Previous work has determined reference taxa for these ecoregions and these lists are currently being validated
through thorough stream assessments. The details of the determination of Fish and Wildlife Propagation beneficial
use support for wadable streams in the ecoregions listed above can be found at OAC 785:46-15-5 (OWRB, 2008):
Oklahoma will be able to monitor biological communities to determine the effectiveness of permit limits and the
parameter-specific criteria they are base upon. Incorporation of biological monitoring and biocriteria to evaluate
fish and wildlife beneficial use support will help reduce monitoring costs by eliminating otherwise required tests for
metals, pesticides, and other toxic substances.
Point Source Control Program
Oklahoma's point source pollution control programs are administered and carried out by the DEQ. The DEQ
administers both municipal and industrial dischargers and issues permits. The DEQ is responsible for monitoring the
dischargers to ensure compliance with permit limitations and conditions as well as to receive and review the
permittee's self-monitoring data.
For industrial dischargers, the DEQ relies on a two-step process for permit development. In the first step, minimum
treatment level standards, based on the industry type, are established. These are termed "technology-based limits."
The technology-based limits are evaluated to determine if a potential exists to violate the WQS. If the potential
exists to violate the WQS, then more stringent "water quality-based limits‖ will be selected for use in the permit.
Each permit specifies both monitoring and reporting requirements for the facility. The permit gives the effective dates
of limits, parameters to be tested, applicable limits for each parameter, frequency of analysis, and sample type of
monitoring. Monitoring results are summarized on a monitoring report form and submitted to the DEQ according to
the schedule in the permit. All Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) and reports from the permittee are reviewed and
violations noted. The permittee's compliance is tracked using the Permit Compliance System (PCS). The administrative
staff utilizes violation review criteria to screen for significant violations. This screening process assures that limited
enforcement resources concentrate on the most significant violations. The following criteria are used to identify
significant violations:
Two or more excursions of 40% or more for inorganic and oxygen demanding pollutants during a six-month
period.
Two or more excursions of 20% or more for toxic pollutants during a six-month period.
Non-reporting violations.
Chronic violations, any violation of any monthly effluent limit for any four or more months in a six month period.
Any effluent violation that causes or has potential to cause a water quality or human health problem.
Permit schedule violations.
Violations of enforcement orders
Any unauthorized bypass, unpermitted discharge, or pass through of pollutants which may cause a water quality
or human health problem.
Construction or modification of sewage treatment works, Publicly Owned Treatment Works conveyance system or
industrial wastewater impoundment, without a permit.
The criteria used for determining significant violations are based on the EPA's current policy, which is used to evaluate
all major and minor permits under the DEQ’s jurisdiction.
Quality assurance strategies are used by the DEQ to ensure that facilities comply with their permit. Field inspections
are conducted on a regular basis with samples of the discharge collected for analyses. The Customer Assistance
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 23 of 78
Division maintains the laboratory certification program. This program assures that industries follow all Quality
Assurance and Quality Control methods when analyzing their effluent samples. All permits require that all analyses
used to determine permit compliance be performed by a DEQ certified lab.
The limits for the permits are "water quality based" and are designed to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving
stream. All permits are tracked through the state's Water Quality Management Plan. The plan is updated as
needed. The updates to the Plan occur on a regular basis with the last full annual update to the Plan being in 1984.
Each permit is written for a single facility. Most facilities have only one discharge; however, some do have multiple
discharges. The information found in each permit includes: latitude and longitude for the facility and/or its point of
discharge; effective date(s) of the permit; limits; self-monitoring frequency and sampling type for each discharge
point; etc. In addition, the permit also requires the permittee to prepare and submit monthly Discharge Monitoring
Reports, which give a summary of the results of the self-monitoring. The Discharge Monitoring Reports are submitted
to DEQ.
All Discharge Monitoring Reports from the permittee are reviewed with violations being noted. The permittee's
compliance is then tracked using the PCS (an EPA computer database system). The DEQ screens the DMR for
significant violations. This screening process allows the DEQ to concentrate its funding where it is needed most.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control practices are used by the DEQ to ensure that publicly owned treatment works are
complying with permit conditions. Regular inspections of publicly owned treatment works facilities are conducted by
the DEQ and/or the EPA inspectors with samples of a facility discharge collected for analysis. The DEQ requires that
all operators and laboratory technicians of publicly owned treatment works be properly trained and certified.
Nonpoint Source Control Program
The OCC serves as the lead technical agency for the nonpoint source (NPS) control program except for oil and gas
activities and petroleum storage tanks, which are under Corp. Comm. jurisdiction. The NPS program is a cooperative
effort of state, federal and local agencies. Some of these agencies include the OCC, the DEQ, the ODAFF, the
OWRB, Corp. Comm., local conservation districts, and local landowners. The management programs identify the
state, federal and local agencies with responsibilities relative to the nonpoint source of pollution in question and
outline a plan of action to reduce or eliminate those sources.
The 2000 revision of the NPS Management Program document includes an inventory of best management practices
available for controlling NPS pollution. There are two basic classes of Best Management Practices (BMPs): 1)
practices that reduce the pollutants available for transport by the normal rainfall/runoff process (management
practices), and 2) devices that reduce the amount of pollutants in the runoff before it is discharged to a surface water
body (structural practices). The two main categories of BMPs can be broken down into the following seven general
categories:
1. Detention Basins -- The term detention applies when the runoff is temporarily stored, and apart from relatively
minor incidental losses due to evaporation or percolation, is subsequently discharged to surface water. Control
results from a reduction in pollutant concentrations due to settling during the period that the runoff is detained.
2. Retention Devices -- The term retention applies when runoff is permanently captured so that it is never discharged
directly to surface water. The usual mechanism by which storm-water controls permanently capture surface runoff
is by infiltration. These techniques are often referred to as infiltration BMPs.
3. Vegetative Controls -- Vegetative controls provide contact between storm-water runoff and vegetated areas and
accomplish pollutant removal by combination of filtration, sedimentation and biological uptake that reduce
pollutant concentrations, and/or by a reduction in runoff volume due to infiltration or evapotranspiration.
Vegetative controls are particularly effective in reducing erosion from runoff across disturbed sites or road bar
ditches.
4. Source Controls -- Source control techniques include any practice that either 1) reduce the amount of accumulated
pollutants on the land surface available for runoff by rainfall, or 2) regulate the amount of impervious area to
reduce the portion of rainfall that will appear as runoff, or 3) exclude inappropriate discharges to storm drains.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 24 of 78
5. Discharge Management -- This BMP category refers specifically to the hydrostructure/tailwater category. Under
this BMP, impoundment discharge is managed so that the power of discharge water is kept to a minimum and the
quality of water is kept at a maximum. This includes aeration of tailwater or, other measures that increase
dissolved oxygen levels in tailwater areas.
6. Grade Stabilization -- Grade stabilization refers to any of several different practices used to stabilize areas
where rapid runoff of storm-water results in erosion. These can be either temporary or permanent and are
generally used in drainage ways where the slope exceeds five percent.
7. Stream Bank Protection -- Stream bank protection refers to the practices used to maintain banks by preventing
bank scouring, caving, and gullying. This category includes stream channel stabilization and in-stream structure for
water quality control.
The OCC will perform pre- and post-implementation monitoring to gauge the success of its projects.
The OCC is working toward solving the nonpoint source pollution problems in the watersheds of Lake Eucha, Illinois
River, and Wister Lake, in cooperation with several agencies, including Corporation Commission, the ODAFF, the
Scenic Rivers Commission, DEQ, the OWRB, INCOG, ACOG, the Cooperative Extension Service, the NRCS, and the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The project objectives are to 1) implement BMPs in those
watersheds 2) demonstrate control measures to decrease nutrient loading in the watershed, 3) transfer information
from successful demonstration projects to other watersheds, and 4) create a management program to coordinate all
aspects of watershed remediation.
The OCC is the state agency that oversees implementation of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
signed April 23, 2007. CREP is a $20.6 million cooperative conservation partnership agreement between USDA and
Oklahoma. The program pays eligible landowners in eligible watersheds to establish areas of riparian buffers along
streams, removing those strips of land from agricultural production for 10 to 15 years. Focused in northeast
Oklahoma, CREP will create 500 acres of vegetative filter strips and 8,500 acres of riparian buffers for a total
of 9,000 acres of riparian buffers for a total of 370 miles of protected streams in the Illinois River and
Eucha/Spavinaw Watersheds. Conservation plantings will reduce the flow of nutrients, sediment and other pollutants
in these critical watersheds. Key CREP partners include City of Tulsa’s Metropolitan Utility Authority, Oklahoma Scenic
Rivers Commission, conservation districts of Adair, Cherokee, Delaware, Mayes, and Sequoyah counties, the USDA
Farm Service Agency (FSA) and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
The ODAFF has authorities under the Oklahoma Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Act, the Oklahoma
Swine Feeding Operations (SFO) Act and the Registered Poultry Feeding Operations (RPFO) Act to enforce
regulations governing the owners and/or operators of concentrated animal feeding operations, swine feeding
operations and poultry feeding operations. The CAFO Act and SFO Act require all animal wastes and wastewaters
from such operations be held in a total retention system preventing its discharge to the waters of the state and that
waste generated in these operations be disposed of in a proper manner. The CAFO Act and SFO Act also require
owners/operators to develop and implement Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices (BMPs) at
these operations. Animal Waste Management Plans (AWMPs) could be used in place of BMPs for CAFOs facilities
and Swine Waste Management Plans could be used in place of BMPs for SFOs. Similarly, the RPFO Act requires
poultry feeding operations to develop and implement AWMPs in storing, handling and utilizing poultry litter. The SFO
and RPFO Acts also requires minimum education and training in waste management and related fields be obtained
by owners/operators of these facilities. The Oklahoma Poultry Waste Applicators Certification (PWAC) Act requires
the applicators be certified by ODAFF, and soil and litter tests be obtained by the applicators in determining
application rates on any field. Applicators shall report to ODAFF each year the amounts of litter and locations where
litter is applied. All four Acts require that land applications of either manure, litter or liquid animal waste be
performed at agronomic rates. More rigorous requirements are imposed on land applications in the nutrient limited
watersheds or in the areas designated as nutrient vulnerable ground water. The CAFO, SFO and RPFO Acts were
designed to prevent and abate pollution from entering and contaminating any surface or groundwater. Under these
Acts, the ODAFF is required to conduct annual inspections of these operations as well as investigate any complaints
filed against such operations. The ODAFF can take regulatory action against a violator as deemed necessary.
The ODAFF has authorities under the Oklahoma Fertilizer Law to enforce the proper handling and storage of
commercial fertilizers. The ODAFF licenses all bulk fertilizer storage facilities. All fertilizer materials shall be stored,
applied, and handled in a manner, which prevents pollution of groundwater by minimizing losses of the fertilizer
materials. This law is designed to prevent and abate the pollution of surface and groundwater within the state.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 25 of 78
Under this law, the ODAFF has the authority to conduct routine inspections of bulk storage facilities as well as
investigate complaint received on a facility. The ODAFF can take regulatory action against a violator as deemed
necessary.
The ODAFF has authorities under the Oklahoma Pesticide Applicator Law and the Oklahoma Pesticide Law to enforce
the proper handling, storage, and use of commercial pesticides. These laws give the ODAFF authority to mandate
regulations for the use of pesticides, how they are to be stored, and who can purchase them for application. These
laws are designed to prevent or abate pollution of the waters of the state. Under these laws, the ODAFF must
conduct routine inspections and investigates complaints on all facilities or individuals who store, sell, or apply
pesticides. The ODAFF can take regulatory action against a violator as deemed necessary.
The ODAFF is also funding a yearly program to collect and properly dispose of unwanted pesticides. All Oklahoma
farmers, ranchers, pesticide dealers, commercial applicators and non-commercial applicators are eligible to
participate in this program. The ODAFF has contracted a licensed hazardous waste company to collect and properly
dispose of waste pesticides in Oklahoma.
Under Oklahoma Forestry Codes, ODAFF's Forestry Services' water quality program monitors the effects of forest
practices on water quality, administers silvicultural best management practices and provides training and education
of landowners, loggers and forest managers.
Corp Comm has worked with the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC), a consortium of the University
of Tulsa (TU), the University of Oklahoma (OU), Oklahoma State University (OSU), and the University of Arkansas
(UA) at Fayetteville, and the Marginal Well Commission to develop and disseminate best management practices for
the hundreds of small oil and gas operators in the state. IPEC and Well Commission meetings and workshops, along
with the brochures, checklists, kits, videos, and other materials provided by IPEC, have helped producers reduce the
environmental impacts from their oil and gas activities. In addition, Corp Comm has adopted and enforced rules on
site operation, pollution containment BMPs, land application, and spill cleanup with site restoration that help to
minimize non point source impacts.
There are other nonpoint source projects that affect either a specific watershed area, or are statewide projects that
will affect several waterbodies. In addition, there are projects planned in other areas of concern other than
agriculturally related problems. Continuation of this program is dependent largely on federal grant support.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 26 of 78
Superfund Program
Historical hazardous waste problems did not fit into the regulatory hazardous waste system until the passage of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) of 1980. This act
created a large scale national program to identify and clean up sites contaminated from historical hazardous waste
problems and whose owners were no longer available or financially solvent to pay for the clean up, or whose owners
where no longer around. The term "Superfund" was coined to describe the source of funding for this program.
Funding for remedial action was initially obtained from a national revolving fund. The fund obtained its monies
through taxes paid on chemical feedstocks used in the manufacture of chemical products that are likely to become
hazardous waste. This fund has not been reauthorized since 1996 and funding now relies on general appropriations
by Congress. Superfund also established a mechanism to recover cleanup costs from potentially responsible parties.
The DEQ’s Superfund Program conducts and oversees pre-remedial and remedial activities on several Superfund
sites. The Oklahoma Superfund Program relies on federal monies awarded through a cooperative agreement with
EPA. There are thirteen sites in Oklahoma that are on the EPA National Priority List (NPL). EPA ranks sites for clean
up based on the actual or potential risks posed to human or the environment.
The DEQ’s Voluntary Cleanup Program and Brownfield Redevelopment Programs have several large Superfund-like
sites that are undergoing investigation and cleanup. In addition to these larger sites the Voluntary Cleanup Program
has dozens of sites that are undergoing remediation for ground water contamination that are not listed here. There
are also many RCRA sites that are undergoing corrective action for ground water contamination that are not listed
here.
The DEQ also has authority under 27A O.S. §2-7-123 for risk based remediations, and/or 27A O.S. §2-15-107 for
Brownfields sites to place notices on property deeds of risk-based remediation and also allows for restrictions on
certain uses, including ground water if appropriate. Some of the sites listed below have such notices and restrictions
filed in their respective county office.
Refer to Table 12, "Superfund, NPL, and Non-NPL Sites Impacting on Groundwater and Surface Water" for a listing
of sites within Oklahoma.
TABLE 12. SUPERFUND, NPL, AND NON-NPL SITES IMPACTING ON GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Tar Creek
Mining Activities
R24E T29N S16-21
R24E T29N S29-32
R24E T28N S5-6
R23E T28N S05-08
R23E T28N S18-19
R23E T28N S30
R23E T29N S13-36
R22E T28N S01
R22E T28N S12-13
R22E T28N S24-25
R22E T28N S30
R22E T29N S13
R22E T29N S24
R22E T29N S25
R22E T29N S36
Ottawa
Acid Water
Cadmium
Iron
Lead
Sulfates
Zinc
Boone Aquifer
Yes
Roubidoux
Aquifer, yes
(locally near
Picher and
Quapaw)
Tar Creek
Yes
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 27 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Sand Springs
Petrochemical
Complex
Refinery/
Solvent
Recycling
R11E T19N S13-14
Tulsa
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Arkansas River
Alluvium
Yes
Arkansas River
(receives
discharges but no
identifiable
impacts)
Compass
Municipal
Landfill
R12E T19N S18
Tulsa
Benzene
Bleaches
Caustics
Jet Fuel
PCBs
Pesticides
Solvents
Not Applicable
Arkansas River
No
Hardage-Criner
Industrial
Landfill
R04W T06N S24
McClain
Acids
Alcohols
Caustics
Metals
Pesticides
Solvents
North Criner
Creek Alluvium
Yes
North Criner
Creek
Yes
Tenth Street
Salvage Yard
R02W T12N S31
Oklahoma
PCBs
North Canadian
Alluvium
No
North Canadian
River
No
Tinker AFB
Aircraft
Maintenance
R02W T11N S14
R02W T11N S23
Oklahoma
Organic
Solvents (TCE)
Chromium
Petroleum Fuels
Garber-
Wellington
Aquifer
Yes
Soldier Creek
Yes
Fourth Street
Refinery
SE4 SEC35 T12N R3W
& SW4 SEC36 T12N
R3W
Oklahoma
Lead
BTEX
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Garber-
Wellington
Aquifer
Yes
North Canadian
Alluvium
Yes
North Canadian
River
No identifiable
impacts
Mosley Road
Landfill
Municipal
Landfill
R02W T12N S21
Oklahoma
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Garber-
Wellington
Aquifer
Yes
North Canadian
Alluvium
Yes
North Canadian
River
No
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 28 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Double Eagle
Refinery
Refinery
SE4 SEC35 T12N R3W
& SW4 SEC36 T12N
R3W
Oklahoma
Lead
BTEX
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Garber-
Wellington
Aquifer
Yes
North Canadian
Alluvium
Yes
North Canadian
River
No
Oklahoma
Refining Co
Refinery
R09W T05N S18-19
Caddo
Metals
VOCs
Petroleum
Organics
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Rush Springs
Aquifer
Yes
Gladys Creek
Yes
Kerr-McGee
Cushing
Refinery
Refinery
R05W T18N S22&27
Payne
Acid Oil
Sludge
Heavy
Hydrocarbons
Unconfined
Aquifer
Yes
Vamoosa-Ada
Aquifer
No
Skull Creek
Yes
Kerr-McGee
Cleveland
Refinery
Refinery
R08E T21N S18
Pawnee
Petroleum
Coke
Asbestos
Acid Sludges
Cedar Creek
Alluvium
Yes
Vamoosa-Ada
Aquifer
Yes
Cedar Creek
Yes
Blackwell Zinc
Smelter
R01W T27N S21
Kay
Metals
Chikaskia River
Alluvium
Yes
Unnamed
tributary of
Chikaskia River
Yes
National Zinc
R12E T26N S11
Washington
Metals
Not Applicable
Unnamed
tributary of Eliza
Creek
Cleaned up
Ringling
Gasoline Spill
NW4 Sec.35 T4S R4W
Jefferson
BTEX and TPH-GRO
Yes
Yes
Tulsa Fuels &
Manufacturing
Smelter
NE4 SE4 NE4 SEC 31 &
SW4 NW4 SEC32
T22N R14E 1M
Tulsa
Metals
No
Unnamed
drainages
Yes
(sediment only)
Hudson Refining
Refinery
SW4 SEC33 T18N
R05E & NE4 NW4
SEC04 T17N R05E 1m
Payne
Hydrocarbons
metals
Vanoss Aquifer
Yes
Wastewater
Ponds On-Site
Yes
Skoll Creek
No
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 29 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Duncan Refinery
Refinery
R7W T1S S32
Stephens
Hydrocarbons
Garber
Yes
Claridy Creek
Yes
Collinsville
Smelter
Smelter
R14E T22N S32
Tulsa
Metals
No
Blackjack Creek
Yes (sediment
only)
U.S. Zinc
Company
Smelter
R13E T11N S6
Okmulgee
Metals
No
Yes
Coltec, Inc.
Manufacturing
R13E T11N S3
Sequoyah
Solvent (PCE)
Boggy Formation
Yes
No
Rab Valley
Lumber
R25E T8N S15, S16
LeFlore
PAHs
Yes
Yes
Union Pacific
Railroad
R7W T17N S14
Kingfisher
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Yes
No
Okmulgee
Refinery
R13E T13N S31
R13E T12N S6
Okmulgee
BTEX, Metals,
PAHs
Yes
Yes
Imperial
Refining
Corporation
R2E T4S S20, S21
Carter
BTEX, Metals,
PAHs
No
Wetlands
Yes
Clinton-Sherman
Industrial
Airpark
Airbase
R19W T10N S10-11
R19W T10N S14-15
Washita
Trichloro-ethane
(TCE)
Elk City
Sandstone
Aquifer
Yes
Not Applicable
Dobson Ranch
NW4 SEC 17 T11N
R26W IM
Roger Mills Benzene
Ogallala
Yes
No
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 30 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Cornerstone
Shopping
Center
SE4 SEC16 T 12N R
4W approx 6 acres of
West Park Addition to
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
Tetrachloroethe
ne
Quaternary
Terrace Deposits
Yes
No
Oklahoma City
Urban Renewal
- Phase I
21.6 acres of the NW4
SEC 3 T11N R3W
Oklahoma Hydrocarbons
Alluvium and
Terrace Deposits
Yes
No
Blackstar
Performance
SE4 SEC25 T20N R8E
& NE4 SEC25 T20N
R8E
Pawnee
Chlorinated
solvents
Tallant Formation
Yes
No
OKC Solvent
Plume
80 acres in NE/4 S27
T12N R4W & NW/4
S27 T12N R4W
Oklahoma
Chlorinated
solvents
N. Canadian
Terrace Deposits
Yes
No
Compass
Industries
Landfill
R12E T9N SEC18 &
NE4 SE4 SEC 13 T 19N
R 11E
Tulsa SVOC Yes Yes
Anadarko
Petroleum
NW1/4 Sec4 T22N
R6W
Garfield
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
and metals
Yes (Terrace
Deposits)
No
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 31 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Michelin/BFG
N1/2 SW1/4 T28N
R22E
Ottawa VOC Yes No
Cost/Benefit Assessment
Costs
The citizens of this state demand a safe environment in which to live. We take for granted the availability of clean,
safe, adequate drinking water, clean air, inexpensive and convenient solid waste disposal, adequately maintained
wastewater treatment facilities, and an aesthetically pleasing natural environment for recreation.
The mechanisms for providing a clean and safe environment are divided among the federal, state, and
municipal/local governments. It is therefore difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of the cost of water pollution
control efforts. However, a portion of the costs of water pollution control, on an annual basis, can be obtained by
looking at funding received under the CWA. Table 13 provides this information for currently active grants.
TABLE 13. FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT AND STATE MATCHED FUNDING FOR CURRENTLY ACTIVE GRANTS
GRANT NAME AWARD AMOUNT STATE SHARE TOTAL
06 604(b) 100,000 - 100,000
07/08 604(b) 200,000 - 200,000
09/10 604(b) 108,700 - 108,700
09 604(b) ARRA 319,800 - 319,800
05/06 319 (h) 6,374,900 4,257,489 10,632,389
07/08 319(h) 7,700,900 5,133,934 12,834,834
09/10 319(h) 5,807,459 4,075,306 9,882,765
05 Wetlands 379,324 126,510 505,834
06 Wetlands 186,600 62,200 248,800
07 Wetlands 310,796 158,528 469,324
08 Wetlands 432,279 144,308 576,587
10 Wetlands 676,907 225,637 902,544
08/09 106 6,179,052 543,088 6,722,140
10/11 106 1,793,475 271,544 2,065,019
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 32 of 78
GRANT NAME AWARD AMOUNT STATE SHARE TOTAL
09 106 Mon 174,000 - 174,000
05 104 (b)(3) 199,500 10,500 210,000
07 104(b)(3) 150,000 149,956 299,956
Total 31,093,692 15,159,000 46,252,692
Table 14 Lists projects funded through the Clean Water SRF loan program for construction of new wastewater
treatment and collection system projects and rehabilitation or upgrades for fiscal years 2006 & 2007. Total
assistance amounts listed represent funds committed to projects upon loan closing or final project costs, which are
determined upon project completion and may vary slightly.
TABLE 14. FY 2006-2007 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH THE CLEAN
WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
COMMUNITIES
SERVED
PROJECT
NUMBER
ASSISTANCE
AMOUNT
FISCAL
YEAR
OBLIGATIONS
BINDING
COMMIT
DATE
FEDERAL
FUNDS
NON-FEDERAL
FUNDS
Broken Arrow MA ORF-05-0006-CW $15,000,000 06 06/20/06 12,450,000 2,550,000
Glencoe PWA ORF-05-0003-CW $170,000 06 12/13/05 $170,000
Pauls Valley MA ORF-04-0013-CW $900,000 06 09/13/05 $900,000
Noble UA (Ref.) ORF-06-0004-CW $2,540,000 06 03/14/06 $2,450,000
Sand Springs MA ORF-05-0010-CW $2,250,000 06 05/10/05 $1,867,500 $382,500
Stroud UA ORF-05-0004-CW $1,683,385.26 06 08/09/05 $1,683,385.26
Tishomingo MA ORF-04-0003-CW $1,115,000 06 10/11/05 $1,115,000
Tulsa MUA ORF-05-0009-CW $3,130,000 06 02/14/06 $2,597,900 $532,100
Beggs PWA ORF-o5-0005-CW $2,170,000 07 03/13/07 $2,170,000
Collinsville MA ORF-06-0009-CW $1,370,000 07 02/13/07 $1,370,000
Hobart PWA ORF-06-0005-CW $950,000 07 03/13/07 $950,000
Lawton WA ORF-07-0003-CW $10,420,000 07 06/12/07 $8,648,600 $1,771,400
McLoud PWA ORF-04-0008-CW $5,315,000 07 10/10/06 $5,315,000
Tulsa MUA ORF-06-0006-CW $17,825,000 07 10/10/06 $14,794,750 $3,030,250
Woodward MA ORF-07-0001-CW $1,400,000 07 06/12/07 $1,162,000 $238,000
Benefits
Authorized under CWA Section VI, Oklahoma’s Clean Water State Revolving has received an average of $10.8
million in federal grant funds annually and has provided an average of $28.5 million annually in water pollution
control financing since 1990. This program enables eligible public entities to receive low-interest financing for water
pollution control activities, including construction of treatment works and urban storm water runoff projects, and
nonpoint source pollution control activities. Through FY 2007 the Clean Water State Revolving Fund has provided
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 33 of 78
over $513 million for 132 construction projects which support the fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act,
assist the State in maintaining water quality standards, and protect and improve waters of the State.
With a 2.32-to-1 return on federal investment at the end of FY 2007, this program provides a renewable source of
financing for Oklahoma’s ever-increasing water pollution control funding gap, as repayments of these loans,
combined with federal and state funds, investment income, and revenue bonds, are recycled to finance future
projects. The program’s ―60%-of-market‖ fixed interest rate has saved communities an estimated $170 million in
interest savings from program inception through July 2007.
Prior to the formation of the DEQ, the Pollution Control Coordinating Board had been assessing claims for wildlife or
fish kills caused by known spills of pollutants. The Wildlife Department has and continues to use values set by the
American Fisheries Society for assessing dollar amounts for all fish and/or wildlife kills. In most cases, the entity or
responsible party(ies) pays the state for all damages.
One of the primary concerns for the state is the identification and quantification of water quality problems associated
with nonpoint source pollution. The sources can be erosion of stream banks yielding excess sedimentation to streams
and lakes, runoff from over fertilized croplands or pastures, runoff from lawns containing pesticides and fertilizers,
and street runoff containing oil and grease. In addition, Oklahoma is now one of the top states in poultry and swine
production, which have grown to become Oklahoma’s second and third largest agricultural industries, respectively.
There is concern regarding the generation of waste and its management. The nonpoint source Chapter describes
some of the demonstration projects that are addressing these concerns. The agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint
source management components required for 319 grant funding have been developed, approved by the EPA and
implementation has begun. Additional management program components covering broader areas of concern have
been developed and are currently under review. Once these management program components are approved,
additional implementation projects can be started.
However, nonpoint source pollution should not be automatically attributed to agricultural activities, as there are many
sources that contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Other nonpoint source concerns include: acid mine drainage
impacts on surface and groundwater, runoff from oilfield activities, abandoned refineries, rural roads, hydrostructure
tailwaters, in-place contaminants (i.e. underground storage tanks), industrial parks, on-site wastewater disposal
systems, pollutants associated with recreation, and the effects of urban runoff.
Oklahoma has an active Wellhead Protection Program and the state has performed and is performing delineation of
Wellhead Protection Areas for several municipalities. As a priority for the future, the state realizes the need to work
closely with the municipalities to carry out source inventory surveys and assist with management and contingency plans
for their groundwater based drinking water supplies.
The state has had a Water Quality Management Plan for several years, although it has been several years since its
last update. Another of the state's priorities for the future is to develop an innovative and workable Water Quality
Management Plan.
Many of the problems associated with point sources of pollution have been addressed through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. As a result, the majority of point source dischargers has been identified and is
monitored for permit compliance. The DEQ is working on refining its Total Maximum Daily Load process. This process
will enable the state to better address pollution problems while permitting future growth of industry.
In order to obtain a better picture of the water quality of the state, Oklahoma and EPA should seek to increase
funding for monitoring. In point of fact, monitoring in Oklahoma should be increased in order to meet the data needs
of the various governmental entities. If our waters are to be managed in an effective and efficient manner it is
essential that adequate amounts of good quality data be available to scientists and decision makers.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 34 of 78
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 35 of 78
Surface Water Assessment
Surface Water Monitoring Program
The two agencies primarily responsible for carrying out Oklahoma’s surface water monitoring programs are the OCC
and the OWRB.
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Conservation Commission Monitoring Activities
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) has an extensive and unique monitoring program. While OCC
conducts several distinct types of monitoring activities, it is important to note that monitoring efforts are primarily
focused on determining the extent, nature, and probable source(s) of non-point source (NPS) pollution. Following is a
summary of types of monitoring activities OCC conducts across the state.
1. Ambient Monitoring
a. Routine efforts to collect information about the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
streams to determine status and trends
b. Fixed station monitoring occurs at the same place over time to document status and trends. Through
OCC’s Rotating Basin Monitoring Program (RBMP), 250 sites are monitored for 24 months on a
rotational basis every five years.
c. Probabilistic monitoring constitutes sampling of sites which have been randomly selected to represent a
population of sites with known statistical confidence. OCC samples 50 sites per year randomly selected
from the current RBMP basin, resulting in a total sampling effort of 250 sites within the five year
rotation.
d. Includes collection of physical, chemical, and biological data.
e. Fulfillment of the Clean Water Act Section 319 mandate, ―to monitor and assess the State’s waters for
the effects of NPS pollution.‖
2. Diagnostic Monitoring
a. Usually occurs subsequent to ambient monitoring
b. Involves more in-depth sampling to confirm or refute suspected NPS pollution problems, identify and
pinpoint sources, and more accurately document causes and effects of specific problems
c. May include land use assessment, modeling, more intensive water quality monitoring, and biological
assessments
3. Implementation Monitoring
a. Designed to determine the effects of best management practices (BMPs) on water quality
b. Usually involves sampling before and after BMP implementation efforts
c. May include physical, chemical, and/or biological assessments and usually involves collection of
continuous flow weighted samples via automated sampling devices.
4. Reference Condition Monitoring
a. Designed to determine what conditions a healthy waterbody should exhibit in order to determine if
other waterbodies are polluted and to what extent
b. Data collection ensures sufficient physical, chemical, and biological assessments to facilitate a ranking
process for determination of high quality sites.
c. Reference monitoring data will be made available to the OWRB to help establish biological criteria as
part of state water quality standards
5. Volunteer Monitoring
a. Statewide volunteer monitoring program designed to provide a continuing opportunity for water quality
and environmental education.
b. Volunteers are trained and certified for collection of select physical, chemical, and biological data used
for basic assessment and general trend monitoring
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 36 of 78
The OCC conducts other specialized types of monitoring, although rather infrequently and generally at the request of
other agencies. Purposes for monitoring may include:
Protection of endangered species
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) development
Fluvial geomorphology (establishing the relationship between stream shape, climate, and the stream's location
in the watershed)
Documentation of pre- and post-restoration projects to assess effects (e.g., bank restoration or stabilization,
in-stream habitat improvement)
Community assessments for delisting streams when existing data is deemed insufficient or ambiguous
All OCC monitoring is conducted in accordance with EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs). These
QAPPs are subject to peer agency review and approval by the Office of the Secretary of the Environment. OCC
monitoring efforts are coordinated with other state and federal environmental agencies in order to maximize the use
of state resources.
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Water Resources Board Monitoring Activities
OWRB conducts routine monitoring throughout the state. The major monitoring program is the Beneficial Use
Monitoring Program (BUMP) out of which an annual report is generated and distributed to all State legislators.
BUMP targets sites on lakes and streams in cooperation with DEQ, OCC, and other state agencies. Parameters are
selected in order to establish the overall health of state waters and to discover ambient trends, develop TMDLs, and
support development of water quality standards. The primary purpose of the BUMP is to assess the beneficial use
support status of state surface waters.
OWRB also manages a statewide volunteer monitoring program called Water Watch. Samples are analyzed to
determine overall trends and must meet data quality objectives outlined in the Water Watch Quality Assurance
Project Plan.
In addition to BUMP and Water Watch, OWRB conducts several special monitoring efforts across the state.
Parameters, sites, and frequency of monitoring are established on a case-by-case basis for each of these programs.
All are established under formal contracts with the various entities.
Statewide and Regional Probabilistic Monitoring
o OWRB has completed and reported the first statewide streams probabilistic study in Oklahoma.
The report has been submitted to ODEQ for inclusion the state’s integrated report to fulfill OWRB’s
305(b) reporting requirement
o OWRB embarked on a second statewide stream study in 2008 and will complete in 2011. The
study will encompass a 4-year span of all sized flowing waterbodies as well as subsidiary
assessment of condition for smaller and larger waterbodies.
o OWRB is currently completing a regional probabilistic study in the Illinois River watershed. The
study is documenting baseline biological condition in the watershed for use in evaluating the scenic
river total phosphorus criterion.
o OWRB has completed work on the first statewide lakes probabilistic study in Oklahoma. The
report has been submitted to EPA and results have been included in the state’s integrated report as
necessary.
o OWRB has recently completed work looking at Harmful algae blooms in Oklahoma. A report is
currently being finalized for review.
Clean Lakes & Technical Studies
o Eucha & Spavinaw Lakes
 Monitoring to assess impact of nutrients
 Establish long-term monitoring plan
 Determine target nutrient concentration to address taste & odor problems
o Oklahoma City PWS Lakes
 Conduct water quality and bathymetric measurements
 Determine health and water quality trends
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 37 of 78
 Includes OKC's six public water supply lakes and the North Canadian River
o Wister Lake – project complete
 Low-cost restoration pilot project
 Focused on aquatic plant establishment and reduction of wave action
Biological Assessments
o Aimed at establishing biological criteria for inclusion in the Water Quality Standards
o Combines physical, chemical, and biological measurements in a holistic approach
Impaired Waterbody Monitoring – 303(d) List
o Site-specific monitoring under various contracts with DEQ, OCC, and Oklahoma Corporation
Commission
o Aimed at verifying impaired waters listings and/or developing TMDLs
All monitoring activities are coordinated with the other state and federal agencies that collect water
quality data in order minimize duplication of efforts.
Fish Consumption Beneficial Use—Water Column Criteria for Metals
Until this year, the fish consumption beneficial use (water column criteria) was assessed using the short-term protocol
defined in the Use Support Assessment Protocols. Upon further research, it was determined that this application was
incorrect, and that the long-term protocol should be used. The difference between the protocols is in how data are
analyzed. The short-term protocol determines support by calculating the percentage of individual samples
exceeding a particular criterion. Conversely, the long-term protocol determines support by comparing the criteria to
a measure of central tendency—the mean, median, or geometric mean depending on the applicable rule. In previous
reports, when the data were aggregated and a percent exceedance calculated, nearly all sites were supporting the
fish consumption beneficial use. However, when the correct protocol is applied, the support status for several metals
(lead and thallium) becomes non-supporting.
In the case of lead, many of the calculated means are well above the criterion. However, in regards to thallium,
many of the listings may be erroneous. Thallium has a very low criterion (1.4 ppb). When using a percent
exceedance test, all sites had less than 10% of samples above the criterion. In fact, over a 10 year period, the only
samples above criterion occurred over three separate sampling periods—spring 2002, later winter-early spring
2003, and early fall 2004. Furthermore, the reporting limit for thallium has ranged from 3 and 10 ppb, and nearly
all samples have been below detection limit. Reporting limits play a major role in effectively analyzing the data.
However, thallium reporting limits have been unavoidably inconsistent from year to year and historically are always
greater than 2x the criterion. This has made effective analysis a difficult task. These issues are not uncommon with
many metals analyses. However, the OWRB has worked with the State Environmental Laboratory (SEL) to bring most
reporting limits in line with relevant criteria. Because thallium has never been used as a cause code for a listing, its
reporting limit has not been effectively dealt with.
In light of the proposed listing of 69 stream segments for thallium, the OWRB and SEL are taking the following
corrective action. First, the thallium reporting limit has been reduced to 1 ppb. Second, during each sampling event
for the 69 listed sites, the OWRB will collect a sample to be analyzed for thallium. This sampling scenario should
produce at least 6 data points per site and be seasonally representative. Combined with data collected since 2004
(all of which are below reporting limits), five years of data should be available for analyses during the 2012
reporting cycle. In light of this, the OWRB proposes that the thallium listings be categorized as 5C and reanalyzed in
2012 using newer data with more relevant reporting limits.
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Corporation Commission Monitoring Activities
The Corporation Commission (Corp Comm) does five types of environmental monitoring:
1. Soil sampling at spill and other potential pollution case sites;
2. Well water sampling near spill and other potential pollution source sites (ground water impacts are discussed in
the Ground Water Quality section, page …);
3. Stream water sampling near spills, pits, purging wells, and other potential pollution sources;
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 38 of 78
4. Stream, and other surface water sampling in historic oilfield areas, to determine the overall impact of historical
oilfield activity on the waters of the state; and
5. Sampling to evaluate the need for and propose watershed-specific revisions to surface water quality standards.
Both the Petroleum Storage Tank and the Oil and Gas Conservation (Oil & Gas) Divisions within the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission perform the first three types of sampling. Only Corp Comm Oil & Gas does the types of
sampling listed in 4 and 5. These were partially grant (104b, 319h) funded but mostly state funded until 2005,
when Corp Comm Oil & Gas, with assistance from the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, began an extensive
grant-funded sampling and source identification project in several old oilfield areas with high salinity produced
water in South-Central Oklahoma. The descriptions below cover only Oil and Gas Division water quality monitoring.
A. Since 1998 the Oil and Gas Conservation Division has been performing and working with partners on the type
of sampling listed in items 3 and 4 above. Overall, the number of sites sampled so far to determine stream
water quality in oil and gas producing areas is:
5310 surface water sampling events to evaluate overall stream quality, and
1229 stream sample events in old oil fields in relation to nearby spills
This total includes 1,370 samples (approximately 10 per stream) collected and analyzed for Corp Comm Oil &
Gas under the OWRB’s Rotating BUMP program, and 1810 completed sampling events (plus 1045 dry/no
access attempts) done by Conservation Commission personnel and paid for by Corp Comm Oil & Gas under the
South Oklahoma 104b grant . The rest of the samples were state funded, collected by Corp Comm Oil & Gas
personnel. Corp Comm Oil & Gas has been evaluating the analysis results to determine which of the monitored
streams are actually impaired, and which are attaining some or all of their designated beneficial uses. A visual
check for petroleum is made every time a stream is sampled.
B. In addition to the sampling listed above, in 2002 and 2003 Corp Comm Oil & Gas oversaw a project to gather
typical mineral levels in streams in several watersheds. Corp Comm hoped to use this data, combined with other
stream data already collected, to help determine appropriate watershed-based state water quality standards
in several areas across the state. Conservation Commission staff collected most of the water samples, with Corp
Comm Oil & Gas paying for the analyses with a small 104b grant and managing the data.. This includes
373 samples from approximately 90 streams in 25 watersheds collected by Conservation Commission and
analyzed with Corp Comm Oil & Gas’s funds;
87 BUMP samples collected in multiple streams for Corp Comm by OWRB in one additional watershed.
C. From 2005 until 2008 Corp Comm has worked on the South Central Oklahoma Project in a 33X33 mile area
(over 1000 square miles) in Grady, Garvin, Stephens, and Carter counties. For 18 months every accessible
location where a stream crossed a road was periodically sampled by Oklahoma Conservation Commission
personnel using calibrated field meters for pH, TDS, and conductivity. In 337 of the 1810 water monitoring
events water samples were also collected and sent to a lab for complete analysis of all anions and cations. This
data was used to determine that 59 permanently flowing streams and smaller tributary creeks in the old oilfield
areas evaluated had significantly elevated salinity levels. A Helicopter EM survey was also done in part of this
area to determine groundwater impacts and surface water/groundwater interaction – see the Groundwater
Quality section of this report for more detail.
D. The sampling results from all of the different surface water sampling projects, plus some limited data provided to
Corp Comm by others (e.g. 44 samples collected by the University of Tulsa in oilfield areas for the Seminole
Nation) are considered in making stream impairment/attainment decisions for the Integrated Report, including
the 303(d) impaired stream listings (Category 5).
Corp Comm Oil & Gas is also involved with alternative measures to TMDLs for applicable waterbodies in
Category 5. Examples of these include such measures as:
the cleanup of a historic site that is leaking pollutants into ground and/or surface water causing impairment,
or
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 39 of 78
a finding of irreversible man-induced impacts in a waterbody, with recommendations for changes in the
listed beneficial uses until impacts are reduced.
Assessment Methodology
The following methodologies, along with the procedures described in Figure 4 near the end of this section, shall be
used to determine the attainment status of a waterbody's designated beneficial uses and its subsequent
categorization in this Integrated Water Quality Report.
A waterbody that is listed on the State’s current 303(d) list may only be placed in category 1,2, or 3 of the
Integrated Report for ―good cause‖ or if it is demonstrated that new data or information indicate that the waterbody
is attaining its designated beneficial uses. "Good cause" shall mean that the State will provide a reasonable basis for
the recommendation such as flaws in the original analysis that led to the water being listed; more recent or accurate
data; more sophisticated water quality modeling; changes in conditions (e.g., new control equipment or elimination of
discharges); or data is insufficient or non-existent to assess that all uses are met and the water should more
appropriately be in Category 2 or 3.
Waterbodies in categories 2 & 3 will be prioritized in a manner similar to the category 5 waterbodies. A monitoring
schedule will be included for categories 2 & 3 as part of the Integrated Report. Waterbodies included on the most
recent 303(d) list will receive the highest priority for future monitoring.
Use Support Assessment Protocol
These procedures closely follow those set forth in the State's Use Support Assessment Protocol (USAP), which can be
found in OAC 785:46-15. Where the USAP is silent, this listing methodology should be used. Where there are
discrepancies between this methodology and the USAP, the USAP controls.
Beneficial Uses
The Listing Methodology is categorized into beneficial uses. Each beneficial use has a procedure for determining
attainment of that use based on various kinds of biological, chemical, and historical data. The result of applying this
methodology for any given beneficial use must be one of three choices: "attained", "not attained," and "not enough
data to make a determination."
Some beneficial uses have procedures for several different types of data, all of which must be determinable – unless
otherwise specified – in order to determine that the beneficial use is attained. Otherwise, the attainment decision
must be designated "not enough data to make a determination."
Data Requirements
The data used to make a determination must meet various quantity, quality, spatial, and temporal requirements in
order to satisfy the attainment procedures. The following general requirements apply unless otherwise specified in
the use-specific procedures that follow. If neither an "attained" nor "not attained" determination can be made, then
the overall determination for that beneficial use or subcategory shall be "not enough data to make a determination."
Spatial
In general, stream sampling locations should take into consideration existing data, spatial distribution of
monitoring sites, sources of pollution, and major hydrological features such as tributaries and dams.
Non-wadable stream samples may represent a maximum of 25 stream miles.
Wadable stream samples may represent a maximum of 10 stream miles.
Lake samples may represent a maximum of 250 acres per sample. Arms or portions of lakes may be
treated separately from the main body of a lake.
Samples may not be taken within regulatory mixing zones.
Temporal
Sampling must represent seasonal variation. Temporal bias should be avoided.
Stream data older than five (5) years should not be used to make use attainment determinations unless
insufficient data exists for the previous five (5) year period.
Lake data older than ten (10) years should not be used to make use attainment determinations unless
insufficient data exists for the previous ten (10) year period.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 40 of 78
Quantity
For streams, a minimum of ten (10) samples is required to determine use attainment for parameters such
as DO, pH, temperature, coliform bacteria, dissolved solids, and salts.
For lakes of more than 250 surface acres, a minimum of twenty (20) samples is required to determine
use attainment for parameters such as DO, pH, temperature, coliform bacteria, chlorophyll a, and
dissolved solids. For lakes of 250 surface acres or less, a minimum of ten (10) samples is required.
For toxicants, a minimum of five (5) samples is required to determine use attainment.
For any type of sample, if existing samples already assure a "not attained" determination, the minimum
sample quantity requirement does not apply.
PQLs
Criteria above PQL
If sample values are below the PQL (Practical Quantitation Limit) for a parameter whose criterion is above
the PQL, appropriate nonparametric statistical measures shall be used to determine the reporting value.
For waterbodies identified as impaired on the current Integrated Report, if sample values are
nondetectable for a parameter whose criterion is above the PQL, then such value shall be deemed to be
one-half (1/2) of the parameter PQL.
All sample values that are above the PQL shall be the reported values.
Criteria below PQL
If sample values are below the PQL for a criterion which is less than one-half (1/2) of the PQL, then the
values shall be deemed to be zero (0) until the first test result above the PQL appears. After that time,
sample values which are below the PQL shall be deemed to be equal to the criterion value until four (4)
subsequent contiguous samples are shown to be below the PQL. Any subsequent sample values which are
nondetectable may be treated as zero (0) until the next test result appears above the PQL.
For those parameters whose criteria are at least two (2) orders of magnitude below the PQL, evidence
considered with respect to assessment of use support shall include fish tissue analysis, biological community
analysis, biological thresholds wherever available, or other holistic indicators which are appropriate for the
beneficial use in question.
If sample values are below the PQL for a criterion which is greater than or equal to one-half (1/2) of the
PQL but less than the PQL, then the values shall be deemed to be one-half (1/2) of the criterion value until
the first test result above the PQL appears. After that time, sample values which are below the PQL shall be
deemed to be equal to the criterion value until four (4) subsequent contiguous samples are shown to be
below the PQL. Any subsequent sample values which are nondetectable may be treated as equal to one-half
(1/2) of the criterion value until the next test result appears above the PQL.
For waterbodies identified as impaired in the current Integrated Report, if sample values are nondetectable
for a parameter whose criterion is below the PQL, then such value shall be deemed to be one-half (1/2) of
the criterion value.
All sample values that are above the PQL shall be the reported values.
Magnitude of Exceedance
For toxicants, if two or more samples exceed water quality criteria or screening levels by two orders of
magnitude or more, the associated beneficial use is determined to be "not attained."
For DO, if more than two samples in a stream are below 2 mg/L in a given year, the Fish & Wildlife
Propagation beneficial use is determined to be "not attained."
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 41 of 78
Quality Assurance
Data collected for purposes of use support assessment shall be collected using documented programmatic quality
assurance and quality control methods substantially in accordance with those required by "EPA Requirements for
Quality Assurance Project Plans", EPA publication no. EPA/240/B-01/003 (March 2001).
The methods used shall include protections for sample integrity and the documentation of details on analysis
methodologies.
Default Protocol
This method for determining beneficial use attainment should be used where another, more specific method is not
provided.
Short Term Average Parameters
Short term average parameters are based on exposure periods of less than seven days, such as sample standards
(agriculture beneficial use) and turbidity.
A beneficial use is considered attained based on the default protocol for a given short term average parameter if:
10% or fewer of the samples exceed the appropriate screening level or water quality criterion
or
the determination using the default protocol yields "fully supporting but threatened" and the threat will not yield
a determination of other than fully supporting within two years of the determination.
A beneficial use is considered not attained based on the default protocol for a given short term average parameter if:
greater than 10% of the samples exceed the appropriate screening level or water quality criterion
or
the determination using the default protocol yields "fully supporting but threatened" and the threat will yield a
determination of other than fully supporting within two years of the determination.
Long Term Average Parameters
Long term average parameters are based on exposure periods of seven days or longer, such as yearly mean
standards (agriculture beneficial use) and fish consumption water column numerical criteria.
A beneficial use is considered attained based on the default protocol for a given long term average parameter if:
each 2-year rolling average of the sample results does not exceed the long term average criterion or screening
level
or
the determination using the default protocol yields "fully supporting but threatened" and the threat will not yield
a determination of other than fully supporting within two years of the determination.
A beneficial use is considered not attained based on the default protocol for a given long term average parameter if:
any 2-year rolling average of the sample results exceeds the long term average criterion or screening level
or
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 42 of 78
the determination using the default protocol yields "fully supporting but threatened" and the threat will yield a
determination of other than fully supporting within two years of the determination.
Fish & Wildlife Propagation (F&WP)
The methodology for the Fish & Wildlife Propagation (F&WP) beneficial use consists of eight types of data, each
with its own attainment methodology.
The F&WP beneficial use is considered attained if:
in the absence of biological data, all six chemical methodologies (DO, Toxicants, pH, Turbidity, Oil & Grease, and
Toxicants N

WATER QUALITY
IN
OKLAHOMA
2010
INTEGRATED REPORT
PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303(D) AND SECTION 305(B) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
BY
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page i of iv
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Definitions ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Agencies ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Terminologies ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Executive Summary/Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) Requirements ........................................................................................ 5
CWA Section 305(b) Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 5
Integrated Report Guidance ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Category 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Category 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Category 3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Category 4 ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
4B - Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the attainment of
the water quality standard in the near future. .............................................................................................. 7
4C - Impairment is not caused by a pollutant. .............................................................................................. 7
Category 5 ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
Synopsis .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Surface Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Ground Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Diversity and Ecology ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Climate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Water Pollution Control Programs .......................................................................................................................... 20
Water Quality Standards Program ....................................................................................................................... 21
Point Source Control Program ................................................................................................................................. 22
Nonpoint Source Control Program .......................................................................................................................... 23
Superfund Program ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Cost/Benefit Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 31
Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Surface Water Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Surface Water Monitoring Program ...................................................................................................................... 35
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Conservation Commission Monitoring Activities .......................................... 35
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Water Resources Board Monitoring Activities ............................................ 36
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Corporation Commission Monitoring Activities ............................................ 37
Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 39
Use Support Assessment Protocol ....................................................................................................................... 39
Beneficial Uses ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
Data Requirements ............................................................................................................................................... 39
Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Default Protocol ............................................................................................................................................... 41
Fish & Wildlife Propagation (F&WP) ................................................................................................................ 42
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ................................................................................................................................. 42
Toxicants ............................................................................................................................................................ 43
pH ....................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Biological Data ................................................................................................................................................ 44
Turbidity ............................................................................................................................................................ 45
Oil & Grease .................................................................................................................................................... 46
Page ii of iv
Sediment ............................................................................................................................................................ 46
Toxicants Not Assessed and Not Likely to Occur or Violate Criteria ..................................................... 47
Primary Body Contact Recreation (PBCR) .......................................................................................................... 47
Fecal Coliform .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Escherichia coli (E. coli) .................................................................................................................................... 48
Enterococci ......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Secondary Body Contact ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Public and Private Water Supply (PPWS) ......................................................................................................... 49
Toxicants ............................................................................................................................................................ 49
Total Coliform ................................................................................................................................................... 49
Oil & Grease .................................................................................................................................................... 50
Parameters Not Assessed and Not Likely to Occur or Violate Criteria................................................. 50
Chlorophyll-a and Phosphorus ....................................................................................................................... 50
Emergency Water Supply (EWS) ........................................................................................................................ 50
Agriculture .............................................................................................................................................................. 50
Total dissolved solids (TDS)............................................................................................................................ 51
Chlorides ............................................................................................................................................................ 51
Sulfates .............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Navigation .............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................................ 52
Nutrients ............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Phosphorus......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Oil & Grease .................................................................................................................................................... 53
Fish Consumption ................................................................................................................................................... 53
Category Decision Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 54
Causes of Non-Attainment .................................................................................................................................. 56
Sources of Non-Attainment ................................................................................................................................. 56
Prioritization of TMDL Development & Future Monitoring ............................................................................. 63
Coordination, Review, And Approval ................................................................................................................ 65
Groundwater Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 67
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Major Aquifers with Anthropogenic Water Quality Problems or Concerns .............................................. 68
Non-major Aquifers with Anthropogenic Water Quality Problems or Concerns ...................................... 71
Major Sources of Contamination ........................................................................................................................ 71
Overview of State Groundwater Protection Programs ...................................................................................... 73
Oklahoma's Wellhead Protection Program ..................................................................................................... 75
Groundwater Indicators ...................................................................................................................................... 75
References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 77
List of Figures
Figure 1. Ecoregions of Oklahoma ............................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2. Oklahoma Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3. Oklahoma Counties ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4. Ecoregions Where Biocriteria Have Been Established ............................................................................ 45
Figure 5. Integrated Report Category Decision Tree .............................................................................................. 55
Figure 6. Rotating Basin Plan Watersheds by Year ................................................................................................. 65
Figure 7. Mailout Request for Public Input ................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 8. Groundwater Aquifers of Oklahoma ......................................................................................................... 69
Page iii of iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Lake Category Summary ................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. River and Stream Category Summary ........................................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Lake Beneficial Use Support Summary .......................................................................................................... 9
Table 4. River and Stream Beneficial Use Support Summary ................................................................................ 10
Table 5. Lake Acres Impaired by Specific Pollutant ................................................................................................ 10
Table 6. River and Stream Miles Impaired by Specific Pollutant .......................................................................... 11
Table 7. Lake Acres Impaired by Potential Source .................................................................................................. 12
Table 8. River and Stream Miles Impaired by Potential Source ........................................................................... 12
Table 9. Statewide Probabilistic Assessment of Fish in Rivers and Streams ........................................................ 13
Table 10. Statewide Probabilistic Assessment of Macroinvertebrates in Rivers and Streams ........................ 13
Table 11. Atlas of Oklahoma ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 12. Superfund, NPL, and Non-NPL Sites Impacting on Groundwater and Surface Water .................. 26
Table 13. Federal Clean Water Act and State Matched Funding for Currently Active Grants ..................... 31
Table 14. FY 2006-2007 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Projects funded through the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund ............................................................................................................................... 32
Table 15. Temperature- and pH-Dependent Screening Values for Ammonia ................................................... 43
Table 16. Decision Matrix for Toxicants Not Assessed or Likely to Occur or Violate F&WP Criteria ......... 47
Table 17. Cause Codes ................................................................................................................................................. 56
Table 18. Source Codes ................................................................................................................................................ 57
Table 19. Useful Information in Determining Sources of Beneficial Use Non-Attainment ................................. 58
Table 22. Summary of the State Groundwater Protection Programs ................................................................. 73
Table 23. Public water supply standards violations ............................................................................................... 75
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Oklahoma’s Waterbody Identification System .............................................................................A-1
Appendix B – Comprehensive Waterbody Assessment ......................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C – 303(d) List of Impaired Waters........................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D – 303(d) Delisting Justifications ............................................................................................................D-1
Appendix E – Implementation of a Probabilistic Stream/River Monitoring Sampling Network for the State
of Oklahoma .................................................................................................................................................................. E-1
Appendix F – Response to Comments ........................................................................................................................ F-1
Page iv of iv
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2010 OK Integrated Report
Acronyms and Definitions
Page 1 of 78
Acronyms and Definitions
Agencies
ODAFF
OCC
Corporation Commission
OSDH
OSE
DEQ
OWRB
Wildlife Department
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Office of the Secretary of Environment
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Terminologies
303(d)
304(l)
305(b)
314
319(h)
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to identify waters that do not
or are not expected to meet applicable Water Quality Standards with technology-based
controls alone. States are required to establish a priority ranking for the
waters, taking into account the pollution severity and designated uses of the waters.
Once identification and priority ranking are completed, states are to develop Total
Maximum Daily Loads at a level necessary to achieve the applicable state Water
Quality Standards.
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to identify those waters that
fail to meet Water Quality Standards due to toxic pollutants and other sources of
toxicity. It also requires the preparation of individual control strategies that will
reduce point source discharges of toxic pollutants.
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to report its water quality on
a biennial cycle.
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to establish a Lake Water
Quality Assessment Report. This section provides federal funds for the state to submit
a classification of lakes according to trophic condition, develop processes and
methods to control sources of pollution and to work with other agencies in restoring
the quality of those lakes. Section 314 establishes the guidelines for conducting Clean
Lake Studies Phase I and II.
This section of the Clean Water Act requires each state to develop a State
Assessment Report and a Management Program for Nonpoint Source pollution
problems. The Assessment Report is to describe the nature, extent, and effects of
Nonpoint Source pollution, the causes and sources of such pollution, and programs
and methods used for controlling this pollution.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Acronyms and Definitions
Page 2 of 78
BMPs
BOD5
CBOD5
CTSI
CWA
DDT
DO
μg/L
NPDES
NTU
OKWBID
PCB(s)
pH
Best Management Practices: A technique that is determined to be the most effective,
practical means of preventing or reducing pollutants from nonpoint sources in order
to achieve water quality goals.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-Day): The oxygen used in meeting the metabolic
needs of aerobic microorganisms in water rich in organic matter -- called also
biological oxygen demand; the test requires five days of laboratory time and results
may vary when toxic substances are present which effect bacteria.
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-Day): That portion of the BOD that is
not due to oxidation of nitrogenous compounds.
Carlson's Trophic State Index (CTSI = 9.81 ln[chl- ] + 30.6).
Clean Water Act: Public Law 92-500 enacted in 1972 provides for a comprehensive
program of water pollution control; two goals are proclaimed in this Act: (1) to
achieve swimmable, fishable waters wherever attainable by July 1, 1983, and (2)
by 1985 eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters.
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane: A colorless odorless water-insoluble crystalline
insecticide C14H9Cl5 that tends to accumulate in ecosystems and has toxic effects on
many vertebrates.
Dissolved Oxygen: The amount of oxygen dissolved in water. DO concentrations
range from a few parts per million up to about 10 ppm for most Oklahoma streams.
A level of DO around 7 ppm is essential to sustain desired species of game fish. If
DO drops below 5 ppm the danger of a fish kill is present and malodorous conditions
will result. The major factors determining DO levels in water are temperature,
atmospheric pressure, plant photosynthesis, rate of aeration and the presence of
oxygen demanding substances such as organic wastes. In addition to its affect on
aquatic life, DO also prevents the chemical reduction and subsequent movement of
iron and manganese from the sediments and thereby reduces the cost of water
treatment.
Microgram/liter.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: A permit program established by
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. This program regulates discharges into the
nation's water from point sources, including municipal, industrial, commercial and
certain agricultural sources.
Nephelometric Turbidity Units: The measurement of the extent or degree of
cloudiness by means of a nephelometer (an instrument for determining the
concentration or particle size of suspensions by means of transmitted or reflected
light).
Oklahoma Waterbody Identification number: A unique identifier assigned to each
waterbody in Oklahoma. For a complete description of OKWBIDs, please see
Appendix A.
Polychlorinated Biphenyl(s): Any of several compounds that are produced by
replacing hydrogen atoms in biphenyl with chlorine, have various industrial
applications, and are poisonous environmental pollutants which tend to accumulate in
animal tissues.
The negative logarithm of the effective hydrogen ion concentration or hydrogen-ion
activity in gram equivalents per liter used in expressing both acidity and alkalinity on
2010 OK Integrated Report
Acronyms and Definitions
Page 3 of 78
Playa Lakes / Prairie
Potholes
TDS
TMDL
WLA
WQS
a scale whose values run from 0 to 14 with 7 representing neutrality, numbers less
than 7 increasing acidity, and numbers greater that 7 increasing alkalinity.
Shallow, small, ephemeral to permanent closed basin lake, typically found in high plains
and deserts.
Total Dissolved Solids: The complete amount of solid matter dissolved in water or
wastewater.
Total Maximum Daily Load: The sum of individual wasteload allocations for point
sources, safety, reserves, and loads from nonpoint source and natural backgrounds.
Wasteload Allocation: The assignment of target loads to point sources so as to
achieve Water Quality Standards in the most efficient manner. The wasteload
allocation is designed to allocate or allow certain quantities, rates or concentration of
pollutants discharged from contributing point sources which empty their effluent into
the same river segment. The purpose of the wasteload allocation is to eliminate an
undue "wasteload burden" on a given stream segment.
Water Quality Standards: rules which establish classifications of uses of waters of the
state, criteria to maintain and protect such classifications, and other standards or
policies pertaining to the quality of such waters.
The purpose of the Standards is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as
are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the
State does not occur. These rules can be found at OAC 785:45.
Page 4 of 78
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 5 of 78
Executive Summary/Overview
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) Requirements
The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act include Section 303(d). The regulations implementing Section 303(d)
require states to develop lists of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and to submit updated lists
to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years. Water quality standards, as defined in the
Code of Federal Regulations, include beneficial uses, water quality objectives (narrative and numerical) and anti-degradation
requirements. The EPA is required to review impaired water body lists submitted by each state and
approve or disapprove all or part of the list.
For waterbodies on the 303(d) list, the Clean Water Act requires that a pollutant load reduction plan or TMDL be
developed to correct each cause of impairment. TMDLs must document the nature of the water quality impairment,
determine the maximum amount of a pollutant which can be discharged and still meet standards, and identify
allowable loads from the contributing sources. The elements of a TMDL include a problem statement, description of
the desired future condition (numeric target), pollutant source analysis, load allocations, description of how allocations
relate to meeting targets, and margin of safety.
CWA Section 305(b) Requirements
The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act also include Section 305(b). The regulations implementing Section
305(b) require states to develop an inventory of the water quality of all water bodies in the state and to submit an
updated report to the EPA every two years. This process was established as a means for the EPA and the U. S.
Congress to determine the status of the nation's waters.
The 305(b) Report also includes: an analysis of the extent to which water bodies comply with the
―fishable/swimmable‖ goal of the CWA; an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of
pollutants and a level of water quality achieving the ―fishable/swimmable‖ goal have been or will be attained, with
recommendations of additional actions necessary to achieve this goal; an estimate of a) the environmental impact, b)
the economic and social costs, c) the economic and social benefits, and d) the estimated date of such achievement;
and finally, a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations of
programs needed to control them- including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
Integrated Report Guidance
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued guidance (USEPA, 2005) for the development of an
Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Integrated Report) by the States. This guidance
recommends that States integrate their Water Quality Inventory Report (Section 305(b) of the CWA) and their
Impaired Waterbodies List (Section 303(d) of the CWA). The Integrated Report is intended to provide an effective
tool for maintaining high quality waters and improving the quality of waters that do not attain water quality
standards. The Integrated Report will also provide water resources managers and citizens with detailed information
regarding the following:
• Delineation of water quality assessment units providing geographic display of assessment results
• Progress toward achieving comprehensive assessment of all waters
• Water quality standards attainment status
• Methods used to assess water quality standards attainment status
• Additional monitoring needs and schedules
• Pollutants and watersheds requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
• Pollutants and watersheds requiring alternative pollution control measures
• Management strategies (including TMDLs) under development to attain water quality standards
• TMDL development schedules
The Integrated Report will streamline water quality reporting since data sources and assessment methods will be
described in detail, providing a sound technical basis for assessment decisions. Assessment results will also be
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 6 of 78
conveyed in a spatial context, allowing a clearer picture of water quality status and issues. Monitoring needs and
schedules will be described, facilitating the articulation of monitoring priorities and identifying opportunities for
cooperation with other agencies and watershed partners. TMDL needs and schedules will be defined to convey plans
for water quality improvements. The public participation aspects will provide opportunities for data submittal and
open discussion of water quality assessment methods and results.
The Integrated Report combines the non-regulatory requirements of the Water Quality Inventory Report (305b) with
regulation driven List of Impaired Waterbodies (303d) (i.e., only the latter mandates TMDL development). Successful
integration into a single report requires a careful meshing of requirements and procedures. In general, Category 5 of
the Integrated Report satisfies USEPA reporting requirements under Section 303d (Impaired Waterbodies) and
combined with the remaining Categories document assessment under Section 305b (Water Quality Inventory).
Therefore, the regulatory requirements (i.e., EPA approval and adoption; public participation, etc.) for 303d
impaired waterbodies listing only apply to Category 5 of the Integrated Report.
The methods used to develop the 2010 Integrated Report (and subsequent Reports) are described in the Continuing
Planning Process (CPP). One goal of the CPP is to provide an objective and scientifically sound waterbody assessment
listing methodology including:
• A description of the data that the State will use to assess attainment of surface water quality standards
• The quality assurance aspects of the data
• A detailed description of the methods used to evaluate water quality standards attainment
• The placement of waterbodies in one of 5 Categories:
Category 1 - Attaining the water quality standard and no use is threatened.
Waterbodies listed in this category are characterized by data and information that meet the requirements
of the CPP to support a determination that the water quality standard is attained and no use is threatened.
Consideration will be given to scheduling these waterbodies for future monitoring to determine if the water
quality standard continues to be attained.
Category 2 - Attaining some of the designated uses; no use is threatened; and insufficient or no data
and information is available to determine if the remaining uses are attained or threatened.
Waterbodies listed in this category are characterized by data and information which meet the requirements
of the CPP to support a determination that some, but not all, uses are attained and none are threatened.
Attainment status of the remaining uses is unknown because there is insufficient or no data or information.
Monitoring shall be scheduled for these waterbodies to determine if the uses previously found to be in
attainment remain in attainment, and to determine the attainment status of those uses for which data and
information was previously insufficient to make a determination.
Category 3 - Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated use is attained.
Waterbodies are listed in this category when the data or information to support an attainment
determination for any use is not available, consistent with the requirements of the CPP. To assess the
attainment status of these waterbodies, supplementary data and information shall be obtained, or
monitoring shall be scheduled as needed.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 7 of 78
Category 4 - Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but does not require the
development of a TMDL.
4A - TMDL has been completed.
Waterbodies are listed in this subcategory once all TMDL(s) have been developed and approved by
EPA that, when implemented, are expected to result in full attainment of the standard. Where more
than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a waterbody, the waterbody will remain in
Category 5 until all TMDLs for each pollutant have been completed and approved by EPA. Monitoring
shall be scheduled for these waterbodies to verify that the water quality standard is met when the
water quality management actions needed to achieve all TMDLs are implemented.
4B - Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the attainment of the
water quality standard in the near future.
Consistent with the regulation under 130.7(b)(i),(ii), and (iii), waterbodies are listed in this subcategory
when other pollution control requirements required by local, state, or federal authority are stringent
enough to implement any water quality standard (WQS) applicable to such waters. These requirements
must be specifically applicable to the particular water quality problem. Monitoring shall be scheduled
for these waterbodies to verify that the water quality standard is attained as expected.
4C - Impairment is not caused by a pollutant.
Waterbodies are listed in this subcategory if the impairment is not caused by a pollutant. Scheduling of
these waterbodies for monitoring to confirm that there continues to be no pollutant-caused impairment
and to support water quality management actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the impairment,
shall be considered.
Category 5 - The water quality standard is not attained. The waterbody is impaired or threatened for
one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s), and requires a TMDL.
This category constitutes the Section 303(d) list of waters impaired or threatened by a pollutant(s) for which
one or more TMDL(s) are needed. A waterbody is listed in this category if it is determined, in accordance
with the CPP, that a pollutant has caused, is suspected of causing, or is projected to cause an impairment.
Where more than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a single waterbody, the waterbody will
remain in Category 5 until TMDLs for all pollutants have been completed and approved by EPA. For
waterbodies listed in this category, monitoring schedules shall be provided that describe when data and
information will be collected to support TMDL establishment and to determine if the standard is attained.
While the waterbody is being monitored for a specific pollutant to develop a TMDL, the watershed shall
also be monitored to assess the attainment status of other uses. A schedule for the establishment of TMDLs
for all waters in Category 5 shall be submitted. This schedule shall reflect the priority ranking of the listed
waters. Category 5 waterbodies are further divided into the following subcategories:
5A – TMDL is underway or will be scheduled.
5B – A review of the water quality standards will be conducted before a TMDL is scheduled.
5C – Additional data and information will be collected before a TMDL or review of the water
quality standards is scheduled.
The CPP will provide a companion to the 2010 Integrated Report. It is anticipated that this will be a living document
and will be modified, as appropriate, to accompany subsequent Integrated Reports.
Oklahoma’s comprehensive waterbody category list is available in Appendix B. Category 5 waterbodies can be
viewed exclusively in Appendix C.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 8 of 78
Synopsis
During the 2009/2010 reporting cycle, there were a total of 4,183 waterbodies delineated into the Oklahoma
Assessment Database (ADB). These waters include approximately 637,338 lake acres, and 32,885 river and stream
miles, of which approximately 517 miles form the border with the State of Texas.
The water quality data used in this report was collected by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC),
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Corp. Comm.),
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), United States Geological Survey, Tulsa Public Works & Development
Department, Cherokee Nation, and citizens of the state. Only data collected prior to April 30, 2009 was utilized for
this report.
Data used in this report came from several sources, including the Toxics Monitoring Survey of Oklahoma Reservoirs
(OSDH, 1995), Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report (Section 319(h)) (OCC, 1988, 1994), Clean Lakes
Programs (Section 314) (OCC & OWRB), Lake Water Quality Assessment Report (OCC & OWRB, 1994), The Water
Quality of Oklahoma 2008 Integrated Report (ODEQ, 2008), Data Gaps Monitoring Projects (OCC 2002, 2003),
Beneficial Use Monitoring Program, Rotating Basin Monitoring Program, intensive and rapid bio-assessment surveys,.
Historical data and assessments (prior to May 1, 2004) were only used when insufficient current data was available
to assess a waterbody.
The State considers data gathered by interested citizens of the state of Oklahoma to be an important part of the
water quality assessment process. Two organizations that help by contributing to this process are Blue Thumb and
Oklahoma Water Watch. Volunteers collect water quality samples and deliver those samples to water quality
professionals for analysis and assessment. For more information on Blue Thumb, contact the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission. For more information on Oklahoma Water Watch, contact the Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
Additional monitoring will allow the state agencies to refine and modify the descriptions of the quality of the state’s
waters. This report reflects water quality determinations made in the past and such determinations will be confirmed
or modified, as additional monitoring data becomes available. Where some waterbodies are indicated to be
impaired, and suspected cause of impairment is listed, this information is also subject to confirmation or modification
based on additional studies and evaluation by state agencies.
Table 1 shows the size and number of lakes in the state of Oklahoma designated as one of the five available
categories outlined in the Integrated List Guidance above, while Table 2 does the same for river and stream miles.
TABLE 1. LAKE CATEGORY SUMMARY
Category Size (Acres) Number of Waterbodies
1 0 0
2 25,034 8
3 32,761 271
4A 0 0
4B 0 0
4C 0 0
5A 579,543 142
5B 0 0
5C 0 0
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 9 of 78
TABLE 2. RIVER AND STREAM CATEGORY SUMMARY
Category Size (Miles) Number of Waterbodies
1 61 2
2 2,184 188
3 20,317 2,952
4A 719 47
4B 0 0
4C 0 0
5A 8,753 460
5B 95 10
5C 636 103
Table 3 details the attainment status of each designated beneficial use assigned to lake acres in Oklahoma, while
Table 4 does the same for river and stream miles. Each beneficial use for a waterbody must have only one
attainment status associated with that use: supporting, not supporting, insufficient information, or not assessed (no
information). The methodology for assigning the attainment status of a beneficial use of a waterbody is outlined in
the Assessment Methodology and Summary Data section of this report.
TABLE 3. LAKE BENEFICIAL USE SUPPORT SUMMARY
Lake Acres
Use Total Size
Size Fully
Supporting
Size Not
Supporting
Size Not
Assessed
Size with
Insufficient
Info
Aesthetic 637,338 371,757 134,954 32,446 98,181
Agriculture 628,648 471,760 24,211 32,761 99,916
Fish Consumption 637,338 0 0 637,338 0
Warm Water Aquatic
Community 637,338 10,897 576,246 32,455 17,740
Navigation 84,440 84,440 0 0 0
Primary Body Contact
Recreation 637,338 151,021 100,840 32,976 352,681
Public and Private Water
Supply 594,896 147,189 69,175 34,139 344,396
Sensitive Water Supply 136,399 0 0 136,399 0
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 10 of 78
TABLE 4. RIVER AND STREAM BENEFICIAL USE SUPPORT SUMMARY
River Miles
USE Total Size
Size Fully
Supporting
Size Not
Supporting
Size Not
Assessed
Size with
Insufficient
Info
Aesthetic 32,859 5,051 1,109 18,111 8,589
Agriculture 32,789 7,615 3,326 18,223 3,625
Emergency Water Supply 1,598 1,598 0 0 0
Fish Consumption 32,793 567 2,576 28,930 720
Cool Water Aquatic
Community Subcategory 1,608 408 452 561 188
Habitat Limited Aquatic
Community Subcategory 870 57 107 604 101
Trout Fishery 34 0 1 24 9
Warm Water Aquatic
Community Subcategory 30,436 2,553 5,490 16,763 5,630
Navigation 213 213 0 0 0
Primary Body Contact
Recreation 31,599 479 6,712 21,852 2,556
Public and Private Water
Supply 14,907 1,443 384 6,605 6,475
Sensitive Water Supply 1,486 0 0 1,486 0
Secondary Body Contact
Recreation 1,306 79 165 862 200
Table 5 shows the number of lake acres impaired by specific pollutant and Table 6 shows the same for the number of
river and stream miles.
TABLE 5. LAKE ACRES IMPAIRED BY SPECIFIC POLLUTANT
Cause Size (Acres)
Oxygen, Dissolved 396,260
Turbidity 382,541
Color 126,294
Enterococcus 95,636
Chlorophyll-α 69,172
Chloride 17,610
Total Phosphorus 15,993
pH 12,193
Escherichia coli 6,346
Total Dissolved Solids 6,325
Sulfates 5,676
Lead 450
Fecal Coliform 260
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 11 of 78
TABLE 6. RIVER AND STREAM MILES IMPAIRED BY SPECIFIC POLLUTANT
Impairment Size (Miles)
Enterococcus 6,236
Escherichia coli 3,372
Turbidity 3,292
Fecal Coliform 2,673
Dissolved Oxygen 2,121
Total Dissolved Solids 2,113
Thallium 2,073
Chloride 1,968
Sulfates 1,849
Lead 1,593
Sedimentation/Siltation 928
Fishes Bioassessments (Streams) 912
Selenium 501
pH 399
Oil and Grease 281
Copper 156
Cadmium 151
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments 131
Total Phosphorus 118
Ammonia (Un-ionized) 102
Temperature, water 101
Nitrates 85
Zinc 63
Chlorpyrifos 42
Silver 27
DDT 19
Toxaphene 19
Diazinon 11
Dieldrin 10
Chromium (total) 10
Arsenic 6
Barium 4
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 12 of 78
Table 7 shows the number of lake acres impaired by potential sources, and Table 8 shows the number of river and
stream miles impaired by potential sources.
TABLE 7. LAKE ACRES IMPAIRED BY POTENTIAL SOURCE
Potential Source Size (Acres)
Source Unknown 579,508
Rangeland Grazing 37,183
Wildlife Other than Waterfowl 37,183
Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones 32,153
Wastes from Pets 20,553
On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems) 12,915
Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) 9,474
Impacts from Land Application of Wastes 9,474
Sources Outside State Jurisdiction or Borders 9,474
Petroleum/Natural Gas Activities (Legacy) 35
Silviculture Harvesting 25
TABLE 8. RIVER AND STREAM MILES IMPAIRED BY POTENTIAL SOURCE
Potential Source Size (Miles)
Source Unknown 9,640
Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones 6,898
Rangeland Grazing 6,666
Wildlife Other than Waterfowl 6,403
On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems 6,243
Wastes from Pets 4,750
Residential Districts 4,444
Municipal Point Source Discharges 3,798
Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff (Non-construction Related) 3,722
Non-Irrigated Crop Production 3,596
Impacts from Land Application of Wastes 2,500
Atmospheric Deposition – Toxics 2,087
Petroleum/Natural Gas Activities (Legacy) 1,976
Total Retention Domestic Sewage Lagoons 1,179
Agriculture 1,044
Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) 801
Permitted Runoff from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) 756
Clean Sediments 639
Other Spill Related Impacts (Recent Spills) 507
Industrial Point Source Discharge 329
Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands (Inactive) 264
Landfills 251
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 13 of 78
Potential Source Size (Miles)
Mine Tailings 180
Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area) 170
Sources outside State Jurisdiction or Borders 163
Impacts from Hydrostructure Flow Regulation/Modification 156
Atmospheric Deposition - Acidity 146
Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) 116
Silviculture Harvesting 67
Dredging (E.g., for Navigation Channels) 62
Land Application of Wastewater Biosolids (Non-agricultural 46
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 28
Natural Sources 21
Spills from Trucks or Trains 17
Discharges from Biosolids (SLUDGE) Storage, Application or Disposal 17
Releases from Waste Sites or Dumps 17
Surface Mining 14
CERCLA NPL (Superfund) Sites 12
Irrigated Crop Production 10
Acid Mine Drainage 8
Flow Alterations from Water Diversions 1
Statewide probabilistic estimates of fish and macroinvertebrate communities in rivers and streams are depicted in
Table 9 and Table 10, respectively. A description of the State of Oklahoma’s probabilistic monitoring program can
be found in Appendix E of this report. The full report can be found on the OWRB website at www.owrb.ok.gov.
TABLE 9. STATEWIDE PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF FISH IN RIVERS AND STREAMS
Resource Unit Cause Name
State Attainment
Category
Size in
Category
Conf
Level
Lower
Conf
Upper
Conf
Rivers/Streams Miles Fish Good 7,034
95%
±8%
6,499 7,629
Rivers/Streams Miles Fish Fair 4,200
95%
±8%
3,864 4,536
Rivers/Streams
Miles Fish Poor 2,448
95%
±8%
2,252 2,644
TABLE 10. STATEWIDE PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF MACROINVERTEBRATES IN RIVERS AND STREAMS
Resource Unit Cause Name
State Attainment
Category
Size in
Category
Conf
Level
Lower
Conf
Upper
Conf
Rivers/Streams Miles Macroinvertebrates Good 7,005
95%
±8%
6,445 7,565
Rivers/Streams Miles Macroinvertebrates Fair 4,608
95%
±8%
4,239 4,977
Rivers/Streams
Miles Macroinvertebrates Poor 2,026
95%
±8%
1,864 2,188
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 14 of 78
Surface Water Quality
Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards (WQS) are set forth under statutory authority of the OWRB authorized under
82 O.S. § 1085.30. Under these statutes, OWRB "is required to set water quality standards which are practical and
in the best public interest and to classify the state's waters with respect to their best present and future uses. These
WQS are designed to enhance the quality of the waters, to protect their beneficial uses, and to aid in the prevention,
control and abatement of water pollution in the State of Oklahoma" (OWRB, 2006). The WQS have established
designated beneficial uses and standards for all of Oklahoma's waters.
The overall support and attainment of the ―fishable/swimmable‖ goals of the CWA is based upon "total waters." The
EPA requires all states to report their attainment of the goals of the CWA based on total waters. Relying solely upon
this portrayal probably overly inflates estimates of the impaired and threatened conditions of the state’s waters since
monitoring efforts are typically focused on known problem areas. It would be too cost prohibitive to assess all of the
waters within the state. Therefore, all assessment work performed in the state is conducted in a manner that will best
utilize available funding resources. For lake total water reporting, the acreage includes Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) assisted farm ponds. Oklahoma lists
approximately 1,041,884 total lake acres for the state. Of this number, 330,000 acres comprise approximately
220,000 NRCS assisted farm ponds. These farm ponds are not included in EPA's total water database. Although not
considered as "significant lakes," the state considers them as important natural resources for the agricultural and rural
communities. These farm ponds provide a significant amount of water for livestock, a source of primary recreation
for many, used as flood control devices, sediment catchments, and add to the recharge of groundwater aquifers.
Canals, laterals and most all of the wetlands have not been assessed for the goals of the CWA nor have they been
assessed for their beneficial uses. Canals and laterals are manmade watercourses and have not been included in the
Appendix A of the WQS. By default, these waters would be assigned primary protection under the 2008 WQS
(OWRB, 2008). Due to a lack of funding, no assessment projects have been initiated on these types of waterbodies.
Wetlands have not been assigned specific WQS and therefore fall under the same scenario as canals and laterals.
Several projects and ventures have been initiated to inventory the wetlands within the state, but little assessment work
has been completed.
The major factors affecting the overall use support of the rivers and streams of the state were from the following
causes: pathogens, mineralization, and turbidity. The major factors affecting the overall use support of the lakes of
the state were from the following causes: oxygen depletion, turbidity, and color.
All unlisted waters, not included in Appendix A of the WQS, are assumed to have the beneficial uses consistent with
the CWA's primary protection requirements. All beneficial use determinations are subject to administrative
proceedings including the public hearing process.
Currently, the DEQ develops draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the control
and abatement of municipal and industrial pollution. The DEQ issues the final NPDES permit for municipalities and
industrial dischargers. Permit compliance is monitored by both the discharger and inspectors for the DEQ.
Since the inception of the CWA in 1972 and its amendments, EPA administered the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, which addresses the management of industrial and municipal wastewater
discharges. Previously, the functions related to wastewater were found in the OSDH, for municipal wastewater, and
the OWRB for industrial wastewater. The scattering of the NPDES jurisdiction between two agencies that were
independently pursuing delegation of their portion from the NPDES program did not appear to be conducive for
Oklahoma to assume the program from EPA. Consolidation of the two agencies into the DEQ in July 1993 solved this
problem and the work began for the agency to develop its required program documents, rules and statute changes in
preparation of submitting its formal NPDES application to EPA, Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas.
The DEQ obtained NPDES program assumption from EPA on November 19, 1996. This is indicative of the agency
having jurisdiction over the basic permitting, compliance and enforcement elements of the NPDES program, in
addition to having authority over toxicity reduction, sewage sludge and pretreatment programs. In September 1997,
program assumption to issue storm water permits was obtained from EPA.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Executive Summary/Overview
Page 15 of 78
On the other hand, ODAFF is currently seeking delegation of NPDES program from EPA for CAFO permitting.
Program documents have been submitted to EPA for review. Once the program is delegated, State will have more
control over animal waste discharge or reuse through land application.
Ground Water Quality
The goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are that the nation's groundwater be free of harmful levels of
contaminants and they set national standards for drinking water. Several state agencies are involved in the
protection of Oklahoma's groundwater. These include the DEQ, ODAFF, Corporation Commission, OCC, and the
OWRB. The DEQ is designated as the lead agency for the Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP).
There are instances of man induced groundwater pollution in the state. Except in a few old oilfields, they appear to
be isolated instances and not general contamination of groundwater drinking water supplies. Historical data
indicates water is of good quality from most aquifers.
Oklahoma has Groundwater Standards located in OAC 785:45-7. Designated beneficial uses for the groundwaters
of the state are determined by Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Groundwater with a mean concentration of TDS of less
than 3,000 milligrams per liter has assigned beneficial uses of Public and Private Water Supply, Agriculture, and
Industrial and Municipal Process and Cooling Water. Groundwater with a mean concentration of TDS of greater than
or equal to 3,000 milligrams per liter but less than 10,000 milligrams per liter has assigned beneficial uses of
Agriculture and Industrial and Municipal Process and Cooling Water. Groundwater is protected to background
quality and, once polluted as a result of human activities, is restored to a quality to support its designated beneficial
uses. Ensuring that groundwater meets Water Quality Standards is an important reason for developing and
continuing a Water Quality monitoring Program.
Page 16 of 78
Background
Diversity and Ecology
Oklahoma is a diverse state in its ecology, geology, hydrology, and its rainfall. Oklahoma is comprised of the
following ecoregions: Arkansas Valley, Boston Mountains, Central Great Plains, Central Irregular Plains, Central
Oklahoma/Texas Plains, Flint Hills, Ouachita Mountains, Ozark Highlands, South Central Plains, Southwestern
Tablelands, and Western High Plains. These ecoregions (Figure 1) range from short grass prairies to Loblolly Pine
(Pinus taeda)/Short-leaf Pine (P. echinata)/Oak (Quercus spp.) mixed community.
Much of Oklahoma's original plant and some animal species are either extinct or are greatly reduced in their
distribution. The reduction in native vegetation is mainly due to cultivation, conversion of native prairie to pasture,
timber cutting, and erosion. There are approximately 2,540 species of plants, 81 species of reptiles, 53 species of
amphibians, 101 species of mammals, 400 species of birds, and 175 species of fish. Agriculture is the number one
land use business in the state. Wheat is the number one cash grain crop grown in Oklahoma. Wheat is valuable
during the winter as pasture feed for cattle, sheep and dairy stock. Other important grain crops for the state include
fall and spring oats, barley, rye, sorghum, soybeans, and corn. In addition, pecans, fruits, vegetables, cotton, and
timber all constitute a significant source of income for the state. Other important agricultural land use practices
include cattle, dairy stock, sheep, poultry, and select exotics (e.g., llamas and ostriches).
The latitude and longitude coordinate for the corners of the state, excluding the Panhandle are: Southeast
033 38'15"/ 094 29'08"; Northeast 036 59'54"/094 37'04"; Southwest 034 33'38"/100 00'00"; and Northwest
037 00'00"/100 00'00". The coordinates for the Panhandle are: Southeast 036 30'00"/ 100 00'00"; Northeast
037 00'00"/100 00'00"; Southwest 036 30'00"/103 00'00"; and Northwest 037 00'00"/103 00'00". Oklahoma
runs approximately 481.51 miles east to west and 230.16 miles north to south. The surface area of Oklahoma
occupies approximately 69,919 square miles or 44,000,000 acres. Oklahoma varies in its elevation from its lowest
point of 287 feet above sea level on the Little River in McCurtain County on the border with Arkansas to its highest
point of 4,973 feet above sea level, near Black Mesa in Cimarron County on the border with New Mexico. There
are ten major geologic provinces in Oklahoma with the Northern Shelf Areas being the largest (Figure 2) (Oklahoma
Geological Survey, 1972). Oklahoma is composed of 77 counties with Osage being the largest (Figure 3). Basic
statistics on Oklahoma can be found in Table 9.
Information contained in Table 9 came from a variety of sources including the 2008 U.S. Census estimates, United
States Geological Survey data, the OWRB data, Oklahoma Water Atlas, Reach File 3/Digital Line Graph Data,
ground surveys, the Wildlife Department, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and planimeter data. For the lakes
information, Oklahoma uses the information from the Oklahoma Water Atlas. Oklahoma's environmental agencies
feel that the information contained in the Oklahoma Water Atlas better represents the total of lakes and lake acres
contained within the state. For the remaining rivers, creeks, canals and laterals we will be using a combination of
sources for our data.
The total of fresh-water wetland acres was derived from information obtained from the Wildlife Department and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service reports Riparian Areas of Western Oklahoma and Bottomland Hardwoods of
Eastern Oklahoma. These reports contain information on 58 of the 77 counties in the state. The information in Table
11 was derived from taking the total of the largest most recent estimate for each county listed in the two reports.
This total underestimates the actual number of wetland acres for the state and should be used with extreme caution
when making comparison or trend analysis on Oklahoma's loss of wetlands.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 17 of 78
FIGURE 1. ECOREGIONS OF OKLAHOMA
Central Great Plains
Cross Timbers
Arkansas Valley
High Plains
Central
Irregular
Plains
Ouachita Mountains
Ozark
Highlands
South Central Plains
Flint
Hills
Southwestern
Tablelands
Boston Mountains
High Plains
Southwestern
Tablelands
East Central
Texas Plains
Southwestern
Tablelands
5 Ecoregions of Oklahoma
0 25 50 100 150 200
Miles
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 18 of 78
FIGURE 2. OKLAHOMA GEOLOGY
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 19 of 78
FIGURE 3. OKLAHOMA COUNTIES
TEXAS
OSAGE
ELLIS
BEAVER
KAY
LE FLORE
CADDO
CIMARRON
CREEK
MCCURTAIN
GRADY
WOODS
BRYAN
ATOKA
KIOWA
GRANT
DEWEY BLAINE
HARPER
CUSTER
MAJOR
PITTSBURG
CRAIG
CARTER
GARFIELD NOBLE
PAYNE
LINCOLN
WASHITA
ALFALFA
TILLMAN
LOVE
PUSHMATAHA
MAYES
GARVIN
GREER
LOGAN TULSA
HUGHES
ADAIR
COAL
BECKHAM
LATIMER
STEPHENS
WOODWARD
COMANCHE
ROGER MILLS
ROGERS
JACKSON
CANADIAN
KINGFISHER
HASKELL
CHEROKEE
COTTON
CHOCTAW
MUSKOGEE
JEFFERSON
PAWNEE
MCINTOSH
SEQUOYAH
OKMULGEE
PONTOTOC
OKFUSKEE
OKLAHOMA
JOHNSTON
OTTAWA
WAGONER
MURRAY
DELAWARE
SEMINOLE
MCCLAIN
NOWATA
HARMON
CLEVELAND
POTTAWATOMIE
MARSHALL
WASHINGTON
5 Counties of Oklahoma
0 20 40 80 120 160
Miles
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 20 of 78
TABLE 11. ATLAS OF OKLAHOMA
State Population
3,642,361
State Surface Area, Square Miles
69,919
Number of Major Watershed Basins
7
Total Number of River and Stream Miles
Number of Perennial River and Stream Miles
Number of Intermittent Stream Miles
Number of Canals or Ditches
Number of River Border Miles
78,778
22,386
55,413
175
517
Total Number of Lakes/Reservoirs/Playa/Ponds
Number of Large Lakes
Number of Public & Private Lakes
Number of Watershed Protection Lakes
Number of Playa Lakes (wet season only)
Number of Oxbow Lakes (≥ 10 Acres)
Number of Farm Ponds (Soil Conservation Service assisted)
224,948
34
2,303
1,964
585
62
220,000
Total Number of Lakes/Reservoirs/Playa/Ponds Acres
Major Lake Acres
Public & Private Lake Acres
Watershed Protection Lake Acres
Playa Lakes Acres
Oxbow Lake Acres
Farm Pond Acres
1,041,884
555,450
89,836
54,261
9,572
2,765
330,000
Total Number of Freshwater Wetland Acres
733,895
2008 U.S. Census Bureau Estimate
Based upon United States Geological Survey information
OWRB Data
Reach File 3/Digital Line Graph Data
Oklahoma Water Atlas, 1990
Estimates compiled from the Wildlife Department & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Climate
Oklahoma has a continental type of climate. There are pronounced seasonal and geographical ranges in both
temperature and precipitation. Average annual temperature varies from 53.6 F in the western part of the
Panhandle up to 63.8 F in the southeast part of the state. Annual rainfall varies from approximately 17 inches in
the far western part of the Panhandle to over 55 inches per year near the LeFlore County/McCurtain
County/Arkansas border. The average growing season varies from 180 days in the Panhandle to 240 days in the
southeast corner. Typically, 75% of Oklahoma's annual precipitation falls during the growing season.
Water Pollution Control Programs
The myriad and complex water quality problems remaining today require a more comprehensive approach to find
workable and effective solutions. As we continue to have success reducing impacts from point sources, pollution from
nonpoint sources takes on more significance. Non-traditional concerns such as habitat degradation and conservation
of biological diversity also call for a comprehensive approach.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 21 of 78
The watershed approach provides such a management framework. Utilizing support from the 104(b)(3) program,
Oklahoma has taken the first steps to implement the watershed approach for water quality management in the state.
The following accomplishments have been achieved:
A Whole Basin Planning Approach Working Group was established to coordinate planning and implementation
of the watershed approach in Oklahoma. Representatives of the various state and federal agencies with a role
in water quality management were represented on the Working Group.
A cooperative project with USGS produced a new digital elevation model and digital watershed maps for the
state. Existing 8-digit cataloging units were subdivided into 11-digit watersheds. These watershed maps are the
basis for the state program. The maps have been published on CD-ROM and are available to all agencies and
the public.
Utilizing the new watershed boundaries, the Working Group delineated 11 Watershed Management Units that
are used to implement the watershed approach. The intent is that planning, monitoring, permitting, and other
water quality programs will eventually be coordinated and organized at this scale when the watershed
approach is fully implemented.
Accurate locational data on all dischargers has been gathered using the Global Positioning System. These data
have been built into a GIS-compatible format for analysis. Links to permitting and monitoring data in the PCS
system have been established for analysis and assessment purposes.
A technical committee was established to develop an implementation plan to utilize the new Watershed
Management Units and watershed boundaries in the various reporting and planning programs. Water Quality
Standards, the 303(d) list, the 208 Plan, and the 305(b) Report were targeted for this effort.
Water Quality Standards Program
Oklahoma's WQS are set forth under statutory authority of the OWRB authorized under 82 O.S. § 1085.30. Under
these statutes, the OWRB "is required to set water quality standards which are practical and in the best public
interest and to classify the state's waters with respect to their best present and future uses. These WQS are designed
to enhance the quality of the waters, to protect their beneficial uses, and to aid in the prevention, control and
abatement of water pollution in the State of Oklahoma" (OWRB, 2006). The WQS have established designated
beneficial uses and standards for all of Oklahoma's waters.
Oklahoma defines waters of the state to mean "all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells,
springs, irrigation systems, drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface and
underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon this
state or any portion thereof 82 O.S. § 1084.2(3).
Much of the work developing WQS over the past three decades has been dedicated to the control of point source
discharges through chemical-specific criteria and permit limits. Over the past five years, biological water quality
criteria have also been pursued.
Potential uses of biocriteria, as they pertain to Oklahoma’s WQS, are numerous and far-reaching. Upon completion,
biocriteria and their implementation procedures should be incorporated into the OWRB Rules and into Oklahoma's
Continuing Planning Process (CPP) document. They should then be used as an assessment tool.
The current biological thresholds will allow state agencies and others to consistently analyze the biological community
in terms of the Fish and Wildlife Beneficial Use. These procedures will, for the first time, allow for consistent
examination of biological communities with a minimum of subjectivity and judgment. Ongoing work in this area of
biocriteria development will eventually provide statewide coverage and a biological Use Support Assessment
Protocols for all ecoregions in Oklahoma.
Candidate reference streams have been selected in the Ouachita Mountain, Arkansas Valley, Boston Mountains,
Ozark Highlands, Central Irregular Plains, Central Oklahoma – Texas Plains, and Central Great Plains ecoregions.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 22 of 78
Previous work has determined reference taxa for these ecoregions and these lists are currently being validated
through thorough stream assessments. The details of the determination of Fish and Wildlife Propagation beneficial
use support for wadable streams in the ecoregions listed above can be found at OAC 785:46-15-5 (OWRB, 2008):
Oklahoma will be able to monitor biological communities to determine the effectiveness of permit limits and the
parameter-specific criteria they are base upon. Incorporation of biological monitoring and biocriteria to evaluate
fish and wildlife beneficial use support will help reduce monitoring costs by eliminating otherwise required tests for
metals, pesticides, and other toxic substances.
Point Source Control Program
Oklahoma's point source pollution control programs are administered and carried out by the DEQ. The DEQ
administers both municipal and industrial dischargers and issues permits. The DEQ is responsible for monitoring the
dischargers to ensure compliance with permit limitations and conditions as well as to receive and review the
permittee's self-monitoring data.
For industrial dischargers, the DEQ relies on a two-step process for permit development. In the first step, minimum
treatment level standards, based on the industry type, are established. These are termed "technology-based limits."
The technology-based limits are evaluated to determine if a potential exists to violate the WQS. If the potential
exists to violate the WQS, then more stringent "water quality-based limits‖ will be selected for use in the permit.
Each permit specifies both monitoring and reporting requirements for the facility. The permit gives the effective dates
of limits, parameters to be tested, applicable limits for each parameter, frequency of analysis, and sample type of
monitoring. Monitoring results are summarized on a monitoring report form and submitted to the DEQ according to
the schedule in the permit. All Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) and reports from the permittee are reviewed and
violations noted. The permittee's compliance is tracked using the Permit Compliance System (PCS). The administrative
staff utilizes violation review criteria to screen for significant violations. This screening process assures that limited
enforcement resources concentrate on the most significant violations. The following criteria are used to identify
significant violations:
Two or more excursions of 40% or more for inorganic and oxygen demanding pollutants during a six-month
period.
Two or more excursions of 20% or more for toxic pollutants during a six-month period.
Non-reporting violations.
Chronic violations, any violation of any monthly effluent limit for any four or more months in a six month period.
Any effluent violation that causes or has potential to cause a water quality or human health problem.
Permit schedule violations.
Violations of enforcement orders
Any unauthorized bypass, unpermitted discharge, or pass through of pollutants which may cause a water quality
or human health problem.
Construction or modification of sewage treatment works, Publicly Owned Treatment Works conveyance system or
industrial wastewater impoundment, without a permit.
The criteria used for determining significant violations are based on the EPA's current policy, which is used to evaluate
all major and minor permits under the DEQ’s jurisdiction.
Quality assurance strategies are used by the DEQ to ensure that facilities comply with their permit. Field inspections
are conducted on a regular basis with samples of the discharge collected for analyses. The Customer Assistance
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 23 of 78
Division maintains the laboratory certification program. This program assures that industries follow all Quality
Assurance and Quality Control methods when analyzing their effluent samples. All permits require that all analyses
used to determine permit compliance be performed by a DEQ certified lab.
The limits for the permits are "water quality based" and are designed to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving
stream. All permits are tracked through the state's Water Quality Management Plan. The plan is updated as
needed. The updates to the Plan occur on a regular basis with the last full annual update to the Plan being in 1984.
Each permit is written for a single facility. Most facilities have only one discharge; however, some do have multiple
discharges. The information found in each permit includes: latitude and longitude for the facility and/or its point of
discharge; effective date(s) of the permit; limits; self-monitoring frequency and sampling type for each discharge
point; etc. In addition, the permit also requires the permittee to prepare and submit monthly Discharge Monitoring
Reports, which give a summary of the results of the self-monitoring. The Discharge Monitoring Reports are submitted
to DEQ.
All Discharge Monitoring Reports from the permittee are reviewed with violations being noted. The permittee's
compliance is then tracked using the PCS (an EPA computer database system). The DEQ screens the DMR for
significant violations. This screening process allows the DEQ to concentrate its funding where it is needed most.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control practices are used by the DEQ to ensure that publicly owned treatment works are
complying with permit conditions. Regular inspections of publicly owned treatment works facilities are conducted by
the DEQ and/or the EPA inspectors with samples of a facility discharge collected for analysis. The DEQ requires that
all operators and laboratory technicians of publicly owned treatment works be properly trained and certified.
Nonpoint Source Control Program
The OCC serves as the lead technical agency for the nonpoint source (NPS) control program except for oil and gas
activities and petroleum storage tanks, which are under Corp. Comm. jurisdiction. The NPS program is a cooperative
effort of state, federal and local agencies. Some of these agencies include the OCC, the DEQ, the ODAFF, the
OWRB, Corp. Comm., local conservation districts, and local landowners. The management programs identify the
state, federal and local agencies with responsibilities relative to the nonpoint source of pollution in question and
outline a plan of action to reduce or eliminate those sources.
The 2000 revision of the NPS Management Program document includes an inventory of best management practices
available for controlling NPS pollution. There are two basic classes of Best Management Practices (BMPs): 1)
practices that reduce the pollutants available for transport by the normal rainfall/runoff process (management
practices), and 2) devices that reduce the amount of pollutants in the runoff before it is discharged to a surface water
body (structural practices). The two main categories of BMPs can be broken down into the following seven general
categories:
1. Detention Basins -- The term detention applies when the runoff is temporarily stored, and apart from relatively
minor incidental losses due to evaporation or percolation, is subsequently discharged to surface water. Control
results from a reduction in pollutant concentrations due to settling during the period that the runoff is detained.
2. Retention Devices -- The term retention applies when runoff is permanently captured so that it is never discharged
directly to surface water. The usual mechanism by which storm-water controls permanently capture surface runoff
is by infiltration. These techniques are often referred to as infiltration BMPs.
3. Vegetative Controls -- Vegetative controls provide contact between storm-water runoff and vegetated areas and
accomplish pollutant removal by combination of filtration, sedimentation and biological uptake that reduce
pollutant concentrations, and/or by a reduction in runoff volume due to infiltration or evapotranspiration.
Vegetative controls are particularly effective in reducing erosion from runoff across disturbed sites or road bar
ditches.
4. Source Controls -- Source control techniques include any practice that either 1) reduce the amount of accumulated
pollutants on the land surface available for runoff by rainfall, or 2) regulate the amount of impervious area to
reduce the portion of rainfall that will appear as runoff, or 3) exclude inappropriate discharges to storm drains.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 24 of 78
5. Discharge Management -- This BMP category refers specifically to the hydrostructure/tailwater category. Under
this BMP, impoundment discharge is managed so that the power of discharge water is kept to a minimum and the
quality of water is kept at a maximum. This includes aeration of tailwater or, other measures that increase
dissolved oxygen levels in tailwater areas.
6. Grade Stabilization -- Grade stabilization refers to any of several different practices used to stabilize areas
where rapid runoff of storm-water results in erosion. These can be either temporary or permanent and are
generally used in drainage ways where the slope exceeds five percent.
7. Stream Bank Protection -- Stream bank protection refers to the practices used to maintain banks by preventing
bank scouring, caving, and gullying. This category includes stream channel stabilization and in-stream structure for
water quality control.
The OCC will perform pre- and post-implementation monitoring to gauge the success of its projects.
The OCC is working toward solving the nonpoint source pollution problems in the watersheds of Lake Eucha, Illinois
River, and Wister Lake, in cooperation with several agencies, including Corporation Commission, the ODAFF, the
Scenic Rivers Commission, DEQ, the OWRB, INCOG, ACOG, the Cooperative Extension Service, the NRCS, and the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The project objectives are to 1) implement BMPs in those
watersheds 2) demonstrate control measures to decrease nutrient loading in the watershed, 3) transfer information
from successful demonstration projects to other watersheds, and 4) create a management program to coordinate all
aspects of watershed remediation.
The OCC is the state agency that oversees implementation of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
signed April 23, 2007. CREP is a $20.6 million cooperative conservation partnership agreement between USDA and
Oklahoma. The program pays eligible landowners in eligible watersheds to establish areas of riparian buffers along
streams, removing those strips of land from agricultural production for 10 to 15 years. Focused in northeast
Oklahoma, CREP will create 500 acres of vegetative filter strips and 8,500 acres of riparian buffers for a total
of 9,000 acres of riparian buffers for a total of 370 miles of protected streams in the Illinois River and
Eucha/Spavinaw Watersheds. Conservation plantings will reduce the flow of nutrients, sediment and other pollutants
in these critical watersheds. Key CREP partners include City of Tulsa’s Metropolitan Utility Authority, Oklahoma Scenic
Rivers Commission, conservation districts of Adair, Cherokee, Delaware, Mayes, and Sequoyah counties, the USDA
Farm Service Agency (FSA) and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
The ODAFF has authorities under the Oklahoma Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Act, the Oklahoma
Swine Feeding Operations (SFO) Act and the Registered Poultry Feeding Operations (RPFO) Act to enforce
regulations governing the owners and/or operators of concentrated animal feeding operations, swine feeding
operations and poultry feeding operations. The CAFO Act and SFO Act require all animal wastes and wastewaters
from such operations be held in a total retention system preventing its discharge to the waters of the state and that
waste generated in these operations be disposed of in a proper manner. The CAFO Act and SFO Act also require
owners/operators to develop and implement Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices (BMPs) at
these operations. Animal Waste Management Plans (AWMPs) could be used in place of BMPs for CAFOs facilities
and Swine Waste Management Plans could be used in place of BMPs for SFOs. Similarly, the RPFO Act requires
poultry feeding operations to develop and implement AWMPs in storing, handling and utilizing poultry litter. The SFO
and RPFO Acts also requires minimum education and training in waste management and related fields be obtained
by owners/operators of these facilities. The Oklahoma Poultry Waste Applicators Certification (PWAC) Act requires
the applicators be certified by ODAFF, and soil and litter tests be obtained by the applicators in determining
application rates on any field. Applicators shall report to ODAFF each year the amounts of litter and locations where
litter is applied. All four Acts require that land applications of either manure, litter or liquid animal waste be
performed at agronomic rates. More rigorous requirements are imposed on land applications in the nutrient limited
watersheds or in the areas designated as nutrient vulnerable ground water. The CAFO, SFO and RPFO Acts were
designed to prevent and abate pollution from entering and contaminating any surface or groundwater. Under these
Acts, the ODAFF is required to conduct annual inspections of these operations as well as investigate any complaints
filed against such operations. The ODAFF can take regulatory action against a violator as deemed necessary.
The ODAFF has authorities under the Oklahoma Fertilizer Law to enforce the proper handling and storage of
commercial fertilizers. The ODAFF licenses all bulk fertilizer storage facilities. All fertilizer materials shall be stored,
applied, and handled in a manner, which prevents pollution of groundwater by minimizing losses of the fertilizer
materials. This law is designed to prevent and abate the pollution of surface and groundwater within the state.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 25 of 78
Under this law, the ODAFF has the authority to conduct routine inspections of bulk storage facilities as well as
investigate complaint received on a facility. The ODAFF can take regulatory action against a violator as deemed
necessary.
The ODAFF has authorities under the Oklahoma Pesticide Applicator Law and the Oklahoma Pesticide Law to enforce
the proper handling, storage, and use of commercial pesticides. These laws give the ODAFF authority to mandate
regulations for the use of pesticides, how they are to be stored, and who can purchase them for application. These
laws are designed to prevent or abate pollution of the waters of the state. Under these laws, the ODAFF must
conduct routine inspections and investigates complaints on all facilities or individuals who store, sell, or apply
pesticides. The ODAFF can take regulatory action against a violator as deemed necessary.
The ODAFF is also funding a yearly program to collect and properly dispose of unwanted pesticides. All Oklahoma
farmers, ranchers, pesticide dealers, commercial applicators and non-commercial applicators are eligible to
participate in this program. The ODAFF has contracted a licensed hazardous waste company to collect and properly
dispose of waste pesticides in Oklahoma.
Under Oklahoma Forestry Codes, ODAFF's Forestry Services' water quality program monitors the effects of forest
practices on water quality, administers silvicultural best management practices and provides training and education
of landowners, loggers and forest managers.
Corp Comm has worked with the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC), a consortium of the University
of Tulsa (TU), the University of Oklahoma (OU), Oklahoma State University (OSU), and the University of Arkansas
(UA) at Fayetteville, and the Marginal Well Commission to develop and disseminate best management practices for
the hundreds of small oil and gas operators in the state. IPEC and Well Commission meetings and workshops, along
with the brochures, checklists, kits, videos, and other materials provided by IPEC, have helped producers reduce the
environmental impacts from their oil and gas activities. In addition, Corp Comm has adopted and enforced rules on
site operation, pollution containment BMPs, land application, and spill cleanup with site restoration that help to
minimize non point source impacts.
There are other nonpoint source projects that affect either a specific watershed area, or are statewide projects that
will affect several waterbodies. In addition, there are projects planned in other areas of concern other than
agriculturally related problems. Continuation of this program is dependent largely on federal grant support.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 26 of 78
Superfund Program
Historical hazardous waste problems did not fit into the regulatory hazardous waste system until the passage of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) of 1980. This act
created a large scale national program to identify and clean up sites contaminated from historical hazardous waste
problems and whose owners were no longer available or financially solvent to pay for the clean up, or whose owners
where no longer around. The term "Superfund" was coined to describe the source of funding for this program.
Funding for remedial action was initially obtained from a national revolving fund. The fund obtained its monies
through taxes paid on chemical feedstocks used in the manufacture of chemical products that are likely to become
hazardous waste. This fund has not been reauthorized since 1996 and funding now relies on general appropriations
by Congress. Superfund also established a mechanism to recover cleanup costs from potentially responsible parties.
The DEQ’s Superfund Program conducts and oversees pre-remedial and remedial activities on several Superfund
sites. The Oklahoma Superfund Program relies on federal monies awarded through a cooperative agreement with
EPA. There are thirteen sites in Oklahoma that are on the EPA National Priority List (NPL). EPA ranks sites for clean
up based on the actual or potential risks posed to human or the environment.
The DEQ’s Voluntary Cleanup Program and Brownfield Redevelopment Programs have several large Superfund-like
sites that are undergoing investigation and cleanup. In addition to these larger sites the Voluntary Cleanup Program
has dozens of sites that are undergoing remediation for ground water contamination that are not listed here. There
are also many RCRA sites that are undergoing corrective action for ground water contamination that are not listed
here.
The DEQ also has authority under 27A O.S. §2-7-123 for risk based remediations, and/or 27A O.S. §2-15-107 for
Brownfields sites to place notices on property deeds of risk-based remediation and also allows for restrictions on
certain uses, including ground water if appropriate. Some of the sites listed below have such notices and restrictions
filed in their respective county office.
Refer to Table 12, "Superfund, NPL, and Non-NPL Sites Impacting on Groundwater and Surface Water" for a listing
of sites within Oklahoma.
TABLE 12. SUPERFUND, NPL, AND NON-NPL SITES IMPACTING ON GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Tar Creek
Mining Activities
R24E T29N S16-21
R24E T29N S29-32
R24E T28N S5-6
R23E T28N S05-08
R23E T28N S18-19
R23E T28N S30
R23E T29N S13-36
R22E T28N S01
R22E T28N S12-13
R22E T28N S24-25
R22E T28N S30
R22E T29N S13
R22E T29N S24
R22E T29N S25
R22E T29N S36
Ottawa
Acid Water
Cadmium
Iron
Lead
Sulfates
Zinc
Boone Aquifer
Yes
Roubidoux
Aquifer, yes
(locally near
Picher and
Quapaw)
Tar Creek
Yes
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 27 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Sand Springs
Petrochemical
Complex
Refinery/
Solvent
Recycling
R11E T19N S13-14
Tulsa
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Arkansas River
Alluvium
Yes
Arkansas River
(receives
discharges but no
identifiable
impacts)
Compass
Municipal
Landfill
R12E T19N S18
Tulsa
Benzene
Bleaches
Caustics
Jet Fuel
PCBs
Pesticides
Solvents
Not Applicable
Arkansas River
No
Hardage-Criner
Industrial
Landfill
R04W T06N S24
McClain
Acids
Alcohols
Caustics
Metals
Pesticides
Solvents
North Criner
Creek Alluvium
Yes
North Criner
Creek
Yes
Tenth Street
Salvage Yard
R02W T12N S31
Oklahoma
PCBs
North Canadian
Alluvium
No
North Canadian
River
No
Tinker AFB
Aircraft
Maintenance
R02W T11N S14
R02W T11N S23
Oklahoma
Organic
Solvents (TCE)
Chromium
Petroleum Fuels
Garber-
Wellington
Aquifer
Yes
Soldier Creek
Yes
Fourth Street
Refinery
SE4 SEC35 T12N R3W
& SW4 SEC36 T12N
R3W
Oklahoma
Lead
BTEX
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Garber-
Wellington
Aquifer
Yes
North Canadian
Alluvium
Yes
North Canadian
River
No identifiable
impacts
Mosley Road
Landfill
Municipal
Landfill
R02W T12N S21
Oklahoma
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Garber-
Wellington
Aquifer
Yes
North Canadian
Alluvium
Yes
North Canadian
River
No
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 28 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Double Eagle
Refinery
Refinery
SE4 SEC35 T12N R3W
& SW4 SEC36 T12N
R3W
Oklahoma
Lead
BTEX
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Garber-
Wellington
Aquifer
Yes
North Canadian
Alluvium
Yes
North Canadian
River
No
Oklahoma
Refining Co
Refinery
R09W T05N S18-19
Caddo
Metals
VOCs
Petroleum
Organics
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Rush Springs
Aquifer
Yes
Gladys Creek
Yes
Kerr-McGee
Cushing
Refinery
Refinery
R05W T18N S22&27
Payne
Acid Oil
Sludge
Heavy
Hydrocarbons
Unconfined
Aquifer
Yes
Vamoosa-Ada
Aquifer
No
Skull Creek
Yes
Kerr-McGee
Cleveland
Refinery
Refinery
R08E T21N S18
Pawnee
Petroleum
Coke
Asbestos
Acid Sludges
Cedar Creek
Alluvium
Yes
Vamoosa-Ada
Aquifer
Yes
Cedar Creek
Yes
Blackwell Zinc
Smelter
R01W T27N S21
Kay
Metals
Chikaskia River
Alluvium
Yes
Unnamed
tributary of
Chikaskia River
Yes
National Zinc
R12E T26N S11
Washington
Metals
Not Applicable
Unnamed
tributary of Eliza
Creek
Cleaned up
Ringling
Gasoline Spill
NW4 Sec.35 T4S R4W
Jefferson
BTEX and TPH-GRO
Yes
Yes
Tulsa Fuels &
Manufacturing
Smelter
NE4 SE4 NE4 SEC 31 &
SW4 NW4 SEC32
T22N R14E 1M
Tulsa
Metals
No
Unnamed
drainages
Yes
(sediment only)
Hudson Refining
Refinery
SW4 SEC33 T18N
R05E & NE4 NW4
SEC04 T17N R05E 1m
Payne
Hydrocarbons
metals
Vanoss Aquifer
Yes
Wastewater
Ponds On-Site
Yes
Skoll Creek
No
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 29 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Duncan Refinery
Refinery
R7W T1S S32
Stephens
Hydrocarbons
Garber
Yes
Claridy Creek
Yes
Collinsville
Smelter
Smelter
R14E T22N S32
Tulsa
Metals
No
Blackjack Creek
Yes (sediment
only)
U.S. Zinc
Company
Smelter
R13E T11N S6
Okmulgee
Metals
No
Yes
Coltec, Inc.
Manufacturing
R13E T11N S3
Sequoyah
Solvent (PCE)
Boggy Formation
Yes
No
Rab Valley
Lumber
R25E T8N S15, S16
LeFlore
PAHs
Yes
Yes
Union Pacific
Railroad
R7W T17N S14
Kingfisher
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Yes
No
Okmulgee
Refinery
R13E T13N S31
R13E T12N S6
Okmulgee
BTEX, Metals,
PAHs
Yes
Yes
Imperial
Refining
Corporation
R2E T4S S20, S21
Carter
BTEX, Metals,
PAHs
No
Wetlands
Yes
Clinton-Sherman
Industrial
Airpark
Airbase
R19W T10N S10-11
R19W T10N S14-15
Washita
Trichloro-ethane
(TCE)
Elk City
Sandstone
Aquifer
Yes
Not Applicable
Dobson Ranch
NW4 SEC 17 T11N
R26W IM
Roger Mills Benzene
Ogallala
Yes
No
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 30 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Cornerstone
Shopping
Center
SE4 SEC16 T 12N R
4W approx 6 acres of
West Park Addition to
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
Tetrachloroethe
ne
Quaternary
Terrace Deposits
Yes
No
Oklahoma City
Urban Renewal
- Phase I
21.6 acres of the NW4
SEC 3 T11N R3W
Oklahoma Hydrocarbons
Alluvium and
Terrace Deposits
Yes
No
Blackstar
Performance
SE4 SEC25 T20N R8E
& NE4 SEC25 T20N
R8E
Pawnee
Chlorinated
solvents
Tallant Formation
Yes
No
OKC Solvent
Plume
80 acres in NE/4 S27
T12N R4W & NW/4
S27 T12N R4W
Oklahoma
Chlorinated
solvents
N. Canadian
Terrace Deposits
Yes
No
Compass
Industries
Landfill
R12E T9N SEC18 &
NE4 SE4 SEC 13 T 19N
R 11E
Tulsa SVOC Yes Yes
Anadarko
Petroleum
NW1/4 Sec4 T22N
R6W
Garfield
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
and metals
Yes (Terrace
Deposits)
No
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 31 of 78
Sites
Legal
County
Contaminant
of Concern
Groundwater
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Surface Water
Impacted
(Yes/No)
Michelin/BFG
N1/2 SW1/4 T28N
R22E
Ottawa VOC Yes No
Cost/Benefit Assessment
Costs
The citizens of this state demand a safe environment in which to live. We take for granted the availability of clean,
safe, adequate drinking water, clean air, inexpensive and convenient solid waste disposal, adequately maintained
wastewater treatment facilities, and an aesthetically pleasing natural environment for recreation.
The mechanisms for providing a clean and safe environment are divided among the federal, state, and
municipal/local governments. It is therefore difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of the cost of water pollution
control efforts. However, a portion of the costs of water pollution control, on an annual basis, can be obtained by
looking at funding received under the CWA. Table 13 provides this information for currently active grants.
TABLE 13. FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT AND STATE MATCHED FUNDING FOR CURRENTLY ACTIVE GRANTS
GRANT NAME AWARD AMOUNT STATE SHARE TOTAL
06 604(b) 100,000 - 100,000
07/08 604(b) 200,000 - 200,000
09/10 604(b) 108,700 - 108,700
09 604(b) ARRA 319,800 - 319,800
05/06 319 (h) 6,374,900 4,257,489 10,632,389
07/08 319(h) 7,700,900 5,133,934 12,834,834
09/10 319(h) 5,807,459 4,075,306 9,882,765
05 Wetlands 379,324 126,510 505,834
06 Wetlands 186,600 62,200 248,800
07 Wetlands 310,796 158,528 469,324
08 Wetlands 432,279 144,308 576,587
10 Wetlands 676,907 225,637 902,544
08/09 106 6,179,052 543,088 6,722,140
10/11 106 1,793,475 271,544 2,065,019
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 32 of 78
GRANT NAME AWARD AMOUNT STATE SHARE TOTAL
09 106 Mon 174,000 - 174,000
05 104 (b)(3) 199,500 10,500 210,000
07 104(b)(3) 150,000 149,956 299,956
Total 31,093,692 15,159,000 46,252,692
Table 14 Lists projects funded through the Clean Water SRF loan program for construction of new wastewater
treatment and collection system projects and rehabilitation or upgrades for fiscal years 2006 & 2007. Total
assistance amounts listed represent funds committed to projects upon loan closing or final project costs, which are
determined upon project completion and may vary slightly.
TABLE 14. FY 2006-2007 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH THE CLEAN
WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
COMMUNITIES
SERVED
PROJECT
NUMBER
ASSISTANCE
AMOUNT
FISCAL
YEAR
OBLIGATIONS
BINDING
COMMIT
DATE
FEDERAL
FUNDS
NON-FEDERAL
FUNDS
Broken Arrow MA ORF-05-0006-CW $15,000,000 06 06/20/06 12,450,000 2,550,000
Glencoe PWA ORF-05-0003-CW $170,000 06 12/13/05 $170,000
Pauls Valley MA ORF-04-0013-CW $900,000 06 09/13/05 $900,000
Noble UA (Ref.) ORF-06-0004-CW $2,540,000 06 03/14/06 $2,450,000
Sand Springs MA ORF-05-0010-CW $2,250,000 06 05/10/05 $1,867,500 $382,500
Stroud UA ORF-05-0004-CW $1,683,385.26 06 08/09/05 $1,683,385.26
Tishomingo MA ORF-04-0003-CW $1,115,000 06 10/11/05 $1,115,000
Tulsa MUA ORF-05-0009-CW $3,130,000 06 02/14/06 $2,597,900 $532,100
Beggs PWA ORF-o5-0005-CW $2,170,000 07 03/13/07 $2,170,000
Collinsville MA ORF-06-0009-CW $1,370,000 07 02/13/07 $1,370,000
Hobart PWA ORF-06-0005-CW $950,000 07 03/13/07 $950,000
Lawton WA ORF-07-0003-CW $10,420,000 07 06/12/07 $8,648,600 $1,771,400
McLoud PWA ORF-04-0008-CW $5,315,000 07 10/10/06 $5,315,000
Tulsa MUA ORF-06-0006-CW $17,825,000 07 10/10/06 $14,794,750 $3,030,250
Woodward MA ORF-07-0001-CW $1,400,000 07 06/12/07 $1,162,000 $238,000
Benefits
Authorized under CWA Section VI, Oklahoma’s Clean Water State Revolving has received an average of $10.8
million in federal grant funds annually and has provided an average of $28.5 million annually in water pollution
control financing since 1990. This program enables eligible public entities to receive low-interest financing for water
pollution control activities, including construction of treatment works and urban storm water runoff projects, and
nonpoint source pollution control activities. Through FY 2007 the Clean Water State Revolving Fund has provided
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 33 of 78
over $513 million for 132 construction projects which support the fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act,
assist the State in maintaining water quality standards, and protect and improve waters of the State.
With a 2.32-to-1 return on federal investment at the end of FY 2007, this program provides a renewable source of
financing for Oklahoma’s ever-increasing water pollution control funding gap, as repayments of these loans,
combined with federal and state funds, investment income, and revenue bonds, are recycled to finance future
projects. The program’s ―60%-of-market‖ fixed interest rate has saved communities an estimated $170 million in
interest savings from program inception through July 2007.
Prior to the formation of the DEQ, the Pollution Control Coordinating Board had been assessing claims for wildlife or
fish kills caused by known spills of pollutants. The Wildlife Department has and continues to use values set by the
American Fisheries Society for assessing dollar amounts for all fish and/or wildlife kills. In most cases, the entity or
responsible party(ies) pays the state for all damages.
One of the primary concerns for the state is the identification and quantification of water quality problems associated
with nonpoint source pollution. The sources can be erosion of stream banks yielding excess sedimentation to streams
and lakes, runoff from over fertilized croplands or pastures, runoff from lawns containing pesticides and fertilizers,
and street runoff containing oil and grease. In addition, Oklahoma is now one of the top states in poultry and swine
production, which have grown to become Oklahoma’s second and third largest agricultural industries, respectively.
There is concern regarding the generation of waste and its management. The nonpoint source Chapter describes
some of the demonstration projects that are addressing these concerns. The agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint
source management components required for 319 grant funding have been developed, approved by the EPA and
implementation has begun. Additional management program components covering broader areas of concern have
been developed and are currently under review. Once these management program components are approved,
additional implementation projects can be started.
However, nonpoint source pollution should not be automatically attributed to agricultural activities, as there are many
sources that contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Other nonpoint source concerns include: acid mine drainage
impacts on surface and groundwater, runoff from oilfield activities, abandoned refineries, rural roads, hydrostructure
tailwaters, in-place contaminants (i.e. underground storage tanks), industrial parks, on-site wastewater disposal
systems, pollutants associated with recreation, and the effects of urban runoff.
Oklahoma has an active Wellhead Protection Program and the state has performed and is performing delineation of
Wellhead Protection Areas for several municipalities. As a priority for the future, the state realizes the need to work
closely with the municipalities to carry out source inventory surveys and assist with management and contingency plans
for their groundwater based drinking water supplies.
The state has had a Water Quality Management Plan for several years, although it has been several years since its
last update. Another of the state's priorities for the future is to develop an innovative and workable Water Quality
Management Plan.
Many of the problems associated with point sources of pollution have been addressed through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. As a result, the majority of point source dischargers has been identified and is
monitored for permit compliance. The DEQ is working on refining its Total Maximum Daily Load process. This process
will enable the state to better address pollution problems while permitting future growth of industry.
In order to obtain a better picture of the water quality of the state, Oklahoma and EPA should seek to increase
funding for monitoring. In point of fact, monitoring in Oklahoma should be increased in order to meet the data needs
of the various governmental entities. If our waters are to be managed in an effective and efficient manner it is
essential that adequate amounts of good quality data be available to scientists and decision makers.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Background
Page 34 of 78
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 35 of 78
Surface Water Assessment
Surface Water Monitoring Program
The two agencies primarily responsible for carrying out Oklahoma’s surface water monitoring programs are the OCC
and the OWRB.
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Conservation Commission Monitoring Activities
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) has an extensive and unique monitoring program. While OCC
conducts several distinct types of monitoring activities, it is important to note that monitoring efforts are primarily
focused on determining the extent, nature, and probable source(s) of non-point source (NPS) pollution. Following is a
summary of types of monitoring activities OCC conducts across the state.
1. Ambient Monitoring
a. Routine efforts to collect information about the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
streams to determine status and trends
b. Fixed station monitoring occurs at the same place over time to document status and trends. Through
OCC’s Rotating Basin Monitoring Program (RBMP), 250 sites are monitored for 24 months on a
rotational basis every five years.
c. Probabilistic monitoring constitutes sampling of sites which have been randomly selected to represent a
population of sites with known statistical confidence. OCC samples 50 sites per year randomly selected
from the current RBMP basin, resulting in a total sampling effort of 250 sites within the five year
rotation.
d. Includes collection of physical, chemical, and biological data.
e. Fulfillment of the Clean Water Act Section 319 mandate, ―to monitor and assess the State’s waters for
the effects of NPS pollution.‖
2. Diagnostic Monitoring
a. Usually occurs subsequent to ambient monitoring
b. Involves more in-depth sampling to confirm or refute suspected NPS pollution problems, identify and
pinpoint sources, and more accurately document causes and effects of specific problems
c. May include land use assessment, modeling, more intensive water quality monitoring, and biological
assessments
3. Implementation Monitoring
a. Designed to determine the effects of best management practices (BMPs) on water quality
b. Usually involves sampling before and after BMP implementation efforts
c. May include physical, chemical, and/or biological assessments and usually involves collection of
continuous flow weighted samples via automated sampling devices.
4. Reference Condition Monitoring
a. Designed to determine what conditions a healthy waterbody should exhibit in order to determine if
other waterbodies are polluted and to what extent
b. Data collection ensures sufficient physical, chemical, and biological assessments to facilitate a ranking
process for determination of high quality sites.
c. Reference monitoring data will be made available to the OWRB to help establish biological criteria as
part of state water quality standards
5. Volunteer Monitoring
a. Statewide volunteer monitoring program designed to provide a continuing opportunity for water quality
and environmental education.
b. Volunteers are trained and certified for collection of select physical, chemical, and biological data used
for basic assessment and general trend monitoring
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 36 of 78
The OCC conducts other specialized types of monitoring, although rather infrequently and generally at the request of
other agencies. Purposes for monitoring may include:
Protection of endangered species
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) development
Fluvial geomorphology (establishing the relationship between stream shape, climate, and the stream's location
in the watershed)
Documentation of pre- and post-restoration projects to assess effects (e.g., bank restoration or stabilization,
in-stream habitat improvement)
Community assessments for delisting streams when existing data is deemed insufficient or ambiguous
All OCC monitoring is conducted in accordance with EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs). These
QAPPs are subject to peer agency review and approval by the Office of the Secretary of the Environment. OCC
monitoring efforts are coordinated with other state and federal environmental agencies in order to maximize the use
of state resources.
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Water Resources Board Monitoring Activities
OWRB conducts routine monitoring throughout the state. The major monitoring program is the Beneficial Use
Monitoring Program (BUMP) out of which an annual report is generated and distributed to all State legislators.
BUMP targets sites on lakes and streams in cooperation with DEQ, OCC, and other state agencies. Parameters are
selected in order to establish the overall health of state waters and to discover ambient trends, develop TMDLs, and
support development of water quality standards. The primary purpose of the BUMP is to assess the beneficial use
support status of state surface waters.
OWRB also manages a statewide volunteer monitoring program called Water Watch. Samples are analyzed to
determine overall trends and must meet data quality objectives outlined in the Water Watch Quality Assurance
Project Plan.
In addition to BUMP and Water Watch, OWRB conducts several special monitoring efforts across the state.
Parameters, sites, and frequency of monitoring are established on a case-by-case basis for each of these programs.
All are established under formal contracts with the various entities.
Statewide and Regional Probabilistic Monitoring
o OWRB has completed and reported the first statewide streams probabilistic study in Oklahoma.
The report has been submitted to ODEQ for inclusion the state’s integrated report to fulfill OWRB’s
305(b) reporting requirement
o OWRB embarked on a second statewide stream study in 2008 and will complete in 2011. The
study will encompass a 4-year span of all sized flowing waterbodies as well as subsidiary
assessment of condition for smaller and larger waterbodies.
o OWRB is currently completing a regional probabilistic study in the Illinois River watershed. The
study is documenting baseline biological condition in the watershed for use in evaluating the scenic
river total phosphorus criterion.
o OWRB has completed work on the first statewide lakes probabilistic study in Oklahoma. The
report has been submitted to EPA and results have been included in the state’s integrated report as
necessary.
o OWRB has recently completed work looking at Harmful algae blooms in Oklahoma. A report is
currently being finalized for review.
Clean Lakes & Technical Studies
o Eucha & Spavinaw Lakes
 Monitoring to assess impact of nutrients
 Establish long-term monitoring plan
 Determine target nutrient concentration to address taste & odor problems
o Oklahoma City PWS Lakes
 Conduct water quality and bathymetric measurements
 Determine health and water quality trends
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 37 of 78
 Includes OKC's six public water supply lakes and the North Canadian River
o Wister Lake – project complete
 Low-cost restoration pilot project
 Focused on aquatic plant establishment and reduction of wave action
Biological Assessments
o Aimed at establishing biological criteria for inclusion in the Water Quality Standards
o Combines physical, chemical, and biological measurements in a holistic approach
Impaired Waterbody Monitoring – 303(d) List
o Site-specific monitoring under various contracts with DEQ, OCC, and Oklahoma Corporation
Commission
o Aimed at verifying impaired waters listings and/or developing TMDLs
All monitoring activities are coordinated with the other state and federal agencies that collect water
quality data in order minimize duplication of efforts.
Fish Consumption Beneficial Use—Water Column Criteria for Metals
Until this year, the fish consumption beneficial use (water column criteria) was assessed using the short-term protocol
defined in the Use Support Assessment Protocols. Upon further research, it was determined that this application was
incorrect, and that the long-term protocol should be used. The difference between the protocols is in how data are
analyzed. The short-term protocol determines support by calculating the percentage of individual samples
exceeding a particular criterion. Conversely, the long-term protocol determines support by comparing the criteria to
a measure of central tendency—the mean, median, or geometric mean depending on the applicable rule. In previous
reports, when the data were aggregated and a percent exceedance calculated, nearly all sites were supporting the
fish consumption beneficial use. However, when the correct protocol is applied, the support status for several metals
(lead and thallium) becomes non-supporting.
In the case of lead, many of the calculated means are well above the criterion. However, in regards to thallium,
many of the listings may be erroneous. Thallium has a very low criterion (1.4 ppb). When using a percent
exceedance test, all sites had less than 10% of samples above the criterion. In fact, over a 10 year period, the only
samples above criterion occurred over three separate sampling periods—spring 2002, later winter-early spring
2003, and early fall 2004. Furthermore, the reporting limit for thallium has ranged from 3 and 10 ppb, and nearly
all samples have been below detection limit. Reporting limits play a major role in effectively analyzing the data.
However, thallium reporting limits have been unavoidably inconsistent from year to year and historically are always
greater than 2x the criterion. This has made effective analysis a difficult task. These issues are not uncommon with
many metals analyses. However, the OWRB has worked with the State Environmental Laboratory (SEL) to bring most
reporting limits in line with relevant criteria. Because thallium has never been used as a cause code for a listing, its
reporting limit has not been effectively dealt with.
In light of the proposed listing of 69 stream segments for thallium, the OWRB and SEL are taking the following
corrective action. First, the thallium reporting limit has been reduced to 1 ppb. Second, during each sampling event
for the 69 listed sites, the OWRB will collect a sample to be analyzed for thallium. This sampling scenario should
produce at least 6 data points per site and be seasonally representative. Combined with data collected since 2004
(all of which are below reporting limits), five years of data should be available for analyses during the 2012
reporting cycle. In light of this, the OWRB proposes that the thallium listings be categorized as 5C and reanalyzed in
2012 using newer data with more relevant reporting limits.
Brief Summary of Oklahoma Corporation Commission Monitoring Activities
The Corporation Commission (Corp Comm) does five types of environmental monitoring:
1. Soil sampling at spill and other potential pollution case sites;
2. Well water sampling near spill and other potential pollution source sites (ground water impacts are discussed in
the Ground Water Quality section, page …);
3. Stream water sampling near spills, pits, purging wells, and other potential pollution sources;
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 38 of 78
4. Stream, and other surface water sampling in historic oilfield areas, to determine the overall impact of historical
oilfield activity on the waters of the state; and
5. Sampling to evaluate the need for and propose watershed-specific revisions to surface water quality standards.
Both the Petroleum Storage Tank and the Oil and Gas Conservation (Oil & Gas) Divisions within the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission perform the first three types of sampling. Only Corp Comm Oil & Gas does the types of
sampling listed in 4 and 5. These were partially grant (104b, 319h) funded but mostly state funded until 2005,
when Corp Comm Oil & Gas, with assistance from the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, began an extensive
grant-funded sampling and source identification project in several old oilfield areas with high salinity produced
water in South-Central Oklahoma. The descriptions below cover only Oil and Gas Division water quality monitoring.
A. Since 1998 the Oil and Gas Conservation Division has been performing and working with partners on the type
of sampling listed in items 3 and 4 above. Overall, the number of sites sampled so far to determine stream
water quality in oil and gas producing areas is:
5310 surface water sampling events to evaluate overall stream quality, and
1229 stream sample events in old oil fields in relation to nearby spills
This total includes 1,370 samples (approximately 10 per stream) collected and analyzed for Corp Comm Oil &
Gas under the OWRB’s Rotating BUMP program, and 1810 completed sampling events (plus 1045 dry/no
access attempts) done by Conservation Commission personnel and paid for by Corp Comm Oil & Gas under the
South Oklahoma 104b grant . The rest of the samples were state funded, collected by Corp Comm Oil & Gas
personnel. Corp Comm Oil & Gas has been evaluating the analysis results to determine which of the monitored
streams are actually impaired, and which are attaining some or all of their designated beneficial uses. A visual
check for petroleum is made every time a stream is sampled.
B. In addition to the sampling listed above, in 2002 and 2003 Corp Comm Oil & Gas oversaw a project to gather
typical mineral levels in streams in several watersheds. Corp Comm hoped to use this data, combined with other
stream data already collected, to help determine appropriate watershed-based state water quality standards
in several areas across the state. Conservation Commission staff collected most of the water samples, with Corp
Comm Oil & Gas paying for the analyses with a small 104b grant and managing the data.. This includes
373 samples from approximately 90 streams in 25 watersheds collected by Conservation Commission and
analyzed with Corp Comm Oil & Gas’s funds;
87 BUMP samples collected in multiple streams for Corp Comm by OWRB in one additional watershed.
C. From 2005 until 2008 Corp Comm has worked on the South Central Oklahoma Project in a 33X33 mile area
(over 1000 square miles) in Grady, Garvin, Stephens, and Carter counties. For 18 months every accessible
location where a stream crossed a road was periodically sampled by Oklahoma Conservation Commission
personnel using calibrated field meters for pH, TDS, and conductivity. In 337 of the 1810 water monitoring
events water samples were also collected and sent to a lab for complete analysis of all anions and cations. This
data was used to determine that 59 permanently flowing streams and smaller tributary creeks in the old oilfield
areas evaluated had significantly elevated salinity levels. A Helicopter EM survey was also done in part of this
area to determine groundwater impacts and surface water/groundwater interaction – see the Groundwater
Quality section of this report for more detail.
D. The sampling results from all of the different surface water sampling projects, plus some limited data provided to
Corp Comm by others (e.g. 44 samples collected by the University of Tulsa in oilfield areas for the Seminole
Nation) are considered in making stream impairment/attainment decisions for the Integrated Report, including
the 303(d) impaired stream listings (Category 5).
Corp Comm Oil & Gas is also involved with alternative measures to TMDLs for applicable waterbodies in
Category 5. Examples of these include such measures as:
the cleanup of a historic site that is leaking pollutants into ground and/or surface water causing impairment,
or
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 39 of 78
a finding of irreversible man-induced impacts in a waterbody, with recommendations for changes in the
listed beneficial uses until impacts are reduced.
Assessment Methodology
The following methodologies, along with the procedures described in Figure 4 near the end of this section, shall be
used to determine the attainment status of a waterbody's designated beneficial uses and its subsequent
categorization in this Integrated Water Quality Report.
A waterbody that is listed on the State’s current 303(d) list may only be placed in category 1,2, or 3 of the
Integrated Report for ―good cause‖ or if it is demonstrated that new data or information indicate that the waterbody
is attaining its designated beneficial uses. "Good cause" shall mean that the State will provide a reasonable basis for
the recommendation such as flaws in the original analysis that led to the water being listed; more recent or accurate
data; more sophisticated water quality modeling; changes in conditions (e.g., new control equipment or elimination of
discharges); or data is insufficient or non-existent to assess that all uses are met and the water should more
appropriately be in Category 2 or 3.
Waterbodies in categories 2 & 3 will be prioritized in a manner similar to the category 5 waterbodies. A monitoring
schedule will be included for categories 2 & 3 as part of the Integrated Report. Waterbodies included on the most
recent 303(d) list will receive the highest priority for future monitoring.
Use Support Assessment Protocol
These procedures closely follow those set forth in the State's Use Support Assessment Protocol (USAP), which can be
found in OAC 785:46-15. Where the USAP is silent, this listing methodology should be used. Where there are
discrepancies between this methodology and the USAP, the USAP controls.
Beneficial Uses
The Listing Methodology is categorized into beneficial uses. Each beneficial use has a procedure for determining
attainment of that use based on various kinds of biological, chemical, and historical data. The result of applying this
methodology for any given beneficial use must be one of three choices: "attained", "not attained," and "not enough
data to make a determination."
Some beneficial uses have procedures for several different types of data, all of which must be determinable – unless
otherwise specified – in order to determine that the beneficial use is attained. Otherwise, the attainment decision
must be designated "not enough data to make a determination."
Data Requirements
The data used to make a determination must meet various quantity, quality, spatial, and temporal requirements in
order to satisfy the attainment procedures. The following general requirements apply unless otherwise specified in
the use-specific procedures that follow. If neither an "attained" nor "not attained" determination can be made, then
the overall determination for that beneficial use or subcategory shall be "not enough data to make a determination."
Spatial
In general, stream sampling locations should take into consideration existing data, spatial distribution of
monitoring sites, sources of pollution, and major hydrological features such as tributaries and dams.
Non-wadable stream samples may represent a maximum of 25 stream miles.
Wadable stream samples may represent a maximum of 10 stream miles.
Lake samples may represent a maximum of 250 acres per sample. Arms or portions of lakes may be
treated separately from the main body of a lake.
Samples may not be taken within regulatory mixing zones.
Temporal
Sampling must represent seasonal variation. Temporal bias should be avoided.
Stream data older than five (5) years should not be used to make use attainment determinations unless
insufficient data exists for the previous five (5) year period.
Lake data older than ten (10) years should not be used to make use attainment determinations unless
insufficient data exists for the previous ten (10) year period.
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 40 of 78
Quantity
For streams, a minimum of ten (10) samples is required to determine use attainment for parameters such
as DO, pH, temperature, coliform bacteria, dissolved solids, and salts.
For lakes of more than 250 surface acres, a minimum of twenty (20) samples is required to determine
use attainment for parameters such as DO, pH, temperature, coliform bacteria, chlorophyll a, and
dissolved solids. For lakes of 250 surface acres or less, a minimum of ten (10) samples is required.
For toxicants, a minimum of five (5) samples is required to determine use attainment.
For any type of sample, if existing samples already assure a "not attained" determination, the minimum
sample quantity requirement does not apply.
PQLs
Criteria above PQL
If sample values are below the PQL (Practical Quantitation Limit) for a parameter whose criterion is above
the PQL, appropriate nonparametric statistical measures shall be used to determine the reporting value.
For waterbodies identified as impaired on the current Integrated Report, if sample values are
nondetectable for a parameter whose criterion is above the PQL, then such value shall be deemed to be
one-half (1/2) of the parameter PQL.
All sample values that are above the PQL shall be the reported values.
Criteria below PQL
If sample values are below the PQL for a criterion which is less than one-half (1/2) of the PQL, then the
values shall be deemed to be zero (0) until the first test result above the PQL appears. After that time,
sample values which are below the PQL shall be deemed to be equal to the criterion value until four (4)
subsequent contiguous samples are shown to be below the PQL. Any subsequent sample values which are
nondetectable may be treated as zero (0) until the next test result appears above the PQL.
For those parameters whose criteria are at least two (2) orders of magnitude below the PQL, evidence
considered with respect to assessment of use support shall include fish tissue analysis, biological community
analysis, biological thresholds wherever available, or other holistic indicators which are appropriate for the
beneficial use in question.
If sample values are below the PQL for a criterion which is greater than or equal to one-half (1/2) of the
PQL but less than the PQL, then the values shall be deemed to be one-half (1/2) of the criterion value until
the first test result above the PQL appears. After that time, sample values which are below the PQL shall be
deemed to be equal to the criterion value until four (4) subsequent contiguous samples are shown to be
below the PQL. Any subsequent sample values which are nondetectable may be treated as equal to one-half
(1/2) of the criterion value until the next test result appears above the PQL.
For waterbodies identified as impaired in the current Integrated Report, if sample values are nondetectable
for a parameter whose criterion is below the PQL, then such value shall be deemed to be one-half (1/2) of
the criterion value.
All sample values that are above the PQL shall be the reported values.
Magnitude of Exceedance
For toxicants, if two or more samples exceed water quality criteria or screening levels by two orders of
magnitude or more, the associated beneficial use is determined to be "not attained."
For DO, if more than two samples in a stream are below 2 mg/L in a given year, the Fish & Wildlife
Propagation beneficial use is determined to be "not attained."
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 41 of 78
Quality Assurance
Data collected for purposes of use support assessment shall be collected using documented programmatic quality
assurance and quality control methods substantially in accordance with those required by "EPA Requirements for
Quality Assurance Project Plans", EPA publication no. EPA/240/B-01/003 (March 2001).
The methods used shall include protections for sample integrity and the documentation of details on analysis
methodologies.
Default Protocol
This method for determining beneficial use attainment should be used where another, more specific method is not
provided.
Short Term Average Parameters
Short term average parameters are based on exposure periods of less than seven days, such as sample standards
(agriculture beneficial use) and turbidity.
A beneficial use is considered attained based on the default protocol for a given short term average parameter if:
10% or fewer of the samples exceed the appropriate screening level or water quality criterion
or
the determination using the default protocol yields "fully supporting but threatened" and the threat will not yield
a determination of other than fully supporting within two years of the determination.
A beneficial use is considered not attained based on the default protocol for a given short term average parameter if:
greater than 10% of the samples exceed the appropriate screening level or water quality criterion
or
the determination using the default protocol yields "fully supporting but threatened" and the threat will yield a
determination of other than fully supporting within two years of the determination.
Long Term Average Parameters
Long term average parameters are based on exposure periods of seven days or longer, such as yearly mean
standards (agriculture beneficial use) and fish consumption water column numerical criteria.
A beneficial use is considered attained based on the default protocol for a given long term average parameter if:
each 2-year rolling average of the sample results does not exceed the long term average criterion or screening
level
or
the determination using the default protocol yields "fully supporting but threatened" and the threat will not yield
a determination of other than fully supporting within two years of the determination.
A beneficial use is considered not attained based on the default protocol for a given long term average parameter if:
any 2-year rolling average of the sample results exceeds the long term average criterion or screening level
or
2010 OK Integrated Report
Surface Water Assessment
Page 42 of 78
the determination using the default protocol yields "fully supporting but threatened" and the threat will yield a
determination of other than fully supporting within two years of the determination.
Fish & Wildlife Propagation (F&WP)
The methodology for the Fish & Wildlife Propagation (F&WP) beneficial use consists of eight types of data, each
with its own attainment methodology.
The F&WP beneficial use is considered attained if:
in the absence of biological data, all six chemical methodologies (DO, Toxicants, pH, Turbidity, Oil & Grease, and
Toxicants N